IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 CRP.No. 327 of 2011(D) --------------------------------- [AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/07/2011 IN E.P.NO. 78/08 IN A.R.C.NO.1448/2004 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/IST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------- P.GOPALAN, AGED 48 YEARS,S/O.PAZHINISWAMI CHETTIYAR, VANIYAMKULAM ANGADI,VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN, SRI.R.SREEHARI. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. P.VIJAYAKUMAR,S/O.MADHAVAN,PARAKKOTTIL HOUSE,VANIYAMKULAM,OTTAPPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 522. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE OTTAPALAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.NO.F.1647, OTTAPALAM -679 101. ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE FOR CAVEATOR. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.327 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2011. ORDER The challenge in this civil revision is to the order dated 05.07.2011 in E.P.No.78 of 2008 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Ottappalam (in A.R.C.No.1448 of 2004). The Arbitrator passed an award against petitioner and in favour of the 2nd respondent. Pursuant to that award, property of petitioner was sold by the Assistant Registrar and it was purchased by the 1st respondent. Sale certificate was issued in favour of the 1st respondent. 1st respondent sought delivery of property through court. Petitioner disputed maintainability of the execution petition. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.17728 of 2009 executing court found that execution petition and the application for delivery are maintainable. That order is under challenge. 2. Parties have settled the dispute outside court. As per the settlement petitioner has given a banker's cheque for `20 lakhs (Rupees Twenty lakhs only) to the counsel for 1st respondent on 24.08.2011. That, the said cheque is received by the counsel on behalf of 1st respondent on 24.08.2011 is admitted and acknowledged before me by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent also. Learned counsel for 1st respondent has undertaken to withdraw the petitions pending before the learned Sub Judge, Ottappalam. Petitioner has no objection to the 1st respondent encashing the cheque. In the CRP No.327/2011 2 view of the above, learned counsel on both sides submit that recording the above, this civil revision may be closed. 3. The fact of handing over of cheque and its acceptance as above stated and the undertaking made by the learned counsel for 1st respondent are recorded. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner has no objection to the 1st respondent encashing the cheque is also recorded. In view of that, it is made clear that it is open to the 1st respondent to encash the cheque above referred. Accordingly, recording the submissions made as above this civil revision is closed. I.A.No.1623 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks