The Kerala High Court rejected a regular first appeal and an incidental application to amend the appeal memorandum, noting that litigation had been settled out of court to the decree holder's satisfaction. The court ordered a refund of the court fee and return of the demand draft.
Refund of court fee paid; return of demand draft produced before the lower court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933
RFA.No. 76 of 2007() ----------------------------OS.109/2002 of PRINCIPAL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR ....................
APPELLANT/DEFENDANT ---------------------------------------
C.D.ANTHONY, S/O.DEVASSY, CHALISSERY VALAPILA, NEAR TAGORE CENTENARY HALL, NETHAJI ROAD, TRICHUR 680 618, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRICHUR TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL
RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF
------------------------------------------
P.M.MUHAMMED NAJEEB, S/O.KOYAKUTTY, 10/970A, 'MUBARACK', P.O.ARAKKINAR, CALICUT-673 028, NADUVATTOM AMSOM, AND DESOM, KOZHIKKODE TALUK.
ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ.
R.F.A.No.76 OF 2007 & I.A.No.801 OF 2011
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2011
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J.
The captioned I.A. is filed for an order granting leave to amend the memorandum of appeal by giving up grounds C to G and as a consequence, to reduce the valuation of the appeal. We do not think that such course is necessary now when the parties state that the litigation has been settled between them out of court and the decree holder stands satisfied. We record this submission. In the light of that, the appeal itself is unnecessary. We, accordingly, reject the appeal and order refund of court fee already paid on this appeal. We further order that any Demand Draft stated to have been produced by the appellant before the court below, in view of interim orders in this appeal, shall be returned to the appellant. It is also recorded that the respondent decree holder does not make any
2
RFA.76/07
claim as against the money covered by the DD. The RFA and the I.A. are ordered accordingly.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
Judge. kkb.24/6.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal requires continuation when the parties have settled the litigation out of court.
Whether the demand draft produced before the lower court should be returned to the appellant.
C.D.Anthony
P.M.Muhammed Najeem
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
S.S.Satheesachandan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
