IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 2324 of 2002() ---------------------- ORDER DATED 18.6.2002 N EA NO.995/1997 IN EP NO.476/1993 IN OS.2/1977 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER: PETITIONER IN EA/26TH JUGT.DEBTOR/26TH DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------- MOIDUNNI, S/O. AMBALATH VEETTIL THEKKUMPURATH MAMUTTY, CHAKKUMKANDAM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. NOW RESIDING AT AMBALATH VEETTIL, KECHERY DESOM, ERANELLUR VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------ (*) JOSE, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. CHAKRAMAKKIL LONAPPAN, PALUVAI DESOM, CHAVAKKAD AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. (DIED. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 IMPLEADED) ADDL. RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6: ADDL.2. KOCHUTHRESYA, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.JOSE, PALUVAI DESOM, CHAVAKKAD AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. ADDL.3. MOLI, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.JOSE, -DO- ADDL.4. JHONSON, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.JOSE, -DO- ADDL.5. SHINO, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O.JOSE, -DO- ADDL.6. ROSEMOL, AGED 37 YEARS, -DO- (*)(ADDL. RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 3.8.2007 IN IA NO.2552/2005) BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR ADDL.R2-6 SRI.S.VINOD BHAT (ADV.COMMISSIONER) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN,J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.2324 of 2002 A -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008. ORDER The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.6.2002 in E.A.No.995 of 1997 in E.P.No.476 of 1993 in O.S.No.2 of 1977 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur, by which the application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, filed by the petitioner herein for re-delivery was dismissed by the court below. According to the petitioner, while effecting the delivery of the property, there was excess delivery and a portion of the property belonging to the petitioner was also delivered. 2. During the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition, a Commissioner was appointed as per order dated 5.2.2008. The Commissioner was directed to identify the respective items of properties and to file a report and plan. The Commissioner has, accordingly, submitted a report and plan. 3. Subsequently, the parties entered into a settlement and have filed a joint petition (I.A.No.1490 of 2008) dated 6.6.2008. The application discloses that there was a valid compromise between the parties in CRP No.2324/2002 2 respect of the disputed items of properties and all the disputes and differences in respect of the subject matter of the litigation have been settled between the parties. 4. The prayer made by the petitioner and the respondents is to record the compromise and to dispose of the Revision in terms of the compromise. It is also prayed that Commissioner's report and plan may be treated as part and parcel of the compromise. In view of the compromise, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of recording the compromise and in terms of the compromise. The compromise petition (I.A.No.1490 of 2008) and the Commissioner's report and plan (excluding the documents appended thereto) shall form part of the order in the Revision. In view of the compromise, a decision in the Civil Revision Petition on the merits has become unnecessary. The order impugned shall stand modified to the extent to which the parties have entered into the compromise. No further orders are necessary in the Execution Petition as well. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. cks CRP No.2324/2002 3 K.T.SANKARAN, J. C.R.P. No.2324 of 2002 ORDER 22nd July, 2008 CRP No.2324/2002 4