IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35805 of 2009(O) -------------------------- CMA.91/2008 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM OS.681/2008 of II ADDL.M.C., ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ANNA RAPHEAL, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.LATE RAPHEAL, RESIDING AT ANJIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALOOR-KADAVANTHRA ROAD, KOCHI-17. 2. JOHNSON RAPHEAL, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAPHEAL, RESIDING AT ANJIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALOOR-KADAVANTHRA ROAD, KOCHI-17. 3. JOLLY RAPHEAL, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O.LATE RAPHEAL, RESIDING AT ANJIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALOOR-KADAVANTHRA ROAD, KOCHI-17. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOCHI-20. ADV. SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35805 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of December 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S No.681 of 2008 on the file of 2nd Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. Suit is one for injunction, and the respondent, a statutory authority is the defendant. An application for injunction seeking an identical relief as canvassed in the suit was moved by the plaintiffs, which, after hearing both sides, was allowed by the learned Munsiff. In appeal preferred by the defendant, the order of injunction was modified. Propriety and correctness of the judgment rendered by the learned District Judge in appeal, copy of which is produced as Ext.P5, modifying the order of the learned Munsiff is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel on both sides submitted that the parties have reached a settlement resolving the disputes between them out of court. The defendant, a statutory authority, namely, Greater W.P.(C).No.35805 OF 2009 Page numbers Cochin Development Authority, has agreed to provide a right of way in the north eastern corner of 'B' schedule property, with a width of 3 meters, from A' schedule property up to Kaloor-Kadavanthra road for ingress and egress to the 'A' schedule property by the plaintiffs. In view of the settlement arrived by the parties, it is submitted that recording the submission as aforesaid the writ petition can be disposed of directing the court below to pass a decree in terms of the settlement, which will be filed by both sides by producing a compromise petition. Submission made by the counsel on both sides is recorded. There will be a direction to the court below to pass a decree in case a compromise petition is filed by both sides in the lines indicated as above after being satisfied that the terms of the compromise are legal and acceptable. Writ petition is disposed as indicated above. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE