IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 15 of 2011() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.2060/2009 Dated 28/10/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- S.JAMES VINCENT. ADVOCATE, C-21 HIG APARTMENTS, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-20. BY ADV. SRI.S.JAMES VINCENT (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------- THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, COCHIN-20, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ADV. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC, GCDA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011,ALONG WITH WPC NO. 33817 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No. 15 of 2011 in W.A. No. 2060 of 2009 & WPC. No. 33817 of 2010-B - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of February, 2011 Judgment Basheer, J: Petitioner seeks review of the judgment in the writ appeal. The grounds raised in the petition are entirely based on certain facts and figures and therefore undoubtedly the prayer for review will not fall within the ambit of Section 114 read with Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. But we do not propose to deal with the merit or demerit of the grounds raised in the review petition since we are happy to note that this long pending legal wrangle has mercifully come to a happy finale, thanks to the exemplary co- operation shown by the petitioner, who is a member of this Bar, and particularly the Standing Counsel who appears for the respondent. 3. We do not intend to go back to the past history of the litigation. But it may have to be mentioned that the dispute revolves around the question as to what is the actual amount payable by the petitioner to the respondent from whom the petitioner had purchased a residential apartment under the High Income Group Scheme, within the limits of Cochin Corporation. RP.15/2011 & WPC.33817/2010. : 2 : 4. While the petitioner contends that the amount payable by him is much lower than what has been claimed by the respondent, the case of the respondent is that a sum in the region of about 2.45 lakhs in addition to the enhanced land value, is still due from the petitioner. Yet again, we refrain from dealing with these contentions at this stage. 5. It is heartening to note that on a suggestion made by this Court, both sides agreed that they will give a decent burial to this thorny issue if the Court suggests a reasonable amount to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we suggested that the petitioner may pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to the respondent by way of full and final settlement of the entire dispute. Petitioner agreed to pay the said amount and the respondent also accepted the above suggestion. Petitioner further agreed that he will withdraw the suit filed by him (OS.No.697/2010) before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam and also WPC.No.33817/2010 pending before this Court. 6. Accordingly today the petitioner has handed over a Demand Draft drawn in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, in open Court and it has been duly acknowledged. Therefore the pending dispute between the RP.15/2011 & WPC.33817/2010. : 3 : petitioner and the respondent arising out of the transaction referred to above is treated as closed. There shall be no further liability on the part of the petitioner to the respondent in connection with the said transaction. It is held so. 7. Petitioner submits that he has already filed a petition before the Subordinate Judge's Court Ernakulam seeking permission to withdraw the suit as settled out of Court. The above submission is recorded. 8. WP(C).No.33817/2010 which is also tagged on to this review petition shall also stand dismissed. 9. Respondent shall execute the necessary document of conveyance in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property within one month from today. 10. It is made clear that the above order has been passed by us in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The Review Petition and the Writ Petition are disposed of in the above terms. A.K. Basheer Judge. P.Q. Barkath Ali an. Judge.