IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 RSA.No. 755 of 2004() --------------------- AS.192/1998 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA OS.695/1996 of MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF. ----------------------------------------------- SUBRAMANIAN, S/O.KOVIL THEKKEVALAPPIL KUNJIRAVUNNI, CHAMAKKALA DESOM, CHENTHRAPPINNI AMSOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 2,3 4 & 5/ RESPONDENTS. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NIRMALA, W/O.PADINJAE KOOTTU DAMODARAN, CHAMAKKALA DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 2. KANNAN, S/O.KOVIL THEKKE VALAPPIL NARAYANAN, CHAMAKKALA DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 3. G.JABBAR, C.I.OF POLICE, VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, VALAPPAD. 4. BABURAJAN, HEAD CONSTABLE NO.3620, TAFFIC UNIT, THRISSUR. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN FOR R1 TO R4 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ---------------------------------- R.S.A..NO.755 OF 2004 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2008 J U D G M E N T The appellant as well as the first respondent have filed a compromise petition stating that the disputes between them have been amicably settled and that the appeal may be dismissed. 2. The suit was filed by the appellant for damages for malicious prosecution. The trial Court decreed the suit against the first defendant/first respondent. The first defendant challenged the decree in appeal. The appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Now that the matter is settled between the appellant and the first respondent and the appellant does not want any relief in the suit. The Second Appeal is therefore dismissed as compromised. Half the Court fee paid on the Memorandum of Appeal shall be refunded to the appellant. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. dsn K.T.SANKARAN, J. ---------------------------------- I.A.NO. 2008 IN R.S.A..NO.755 OF 2004 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2008 O R D E R The Registry has noted that the application is defective. In the compromise petition, only the appellant and the first respondent have put their signatures. Respondents 2 to 5 have not signed the compromise petition. 2. The suit was filed by the appellant for damages for malicious prosecution. The trial Court decreed the suit against the first defendant. On appeal by the first defendant, the appellate Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has thus come up in second appeal. It is stated in the compromise petition that the appellant does not want any relief in the suit. Therefore, it is not necessary that respondents 2 to 5 be parties to the compromise. The objection is overruled. Number the application for compromise. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. dsn