Francis v. Trichur Wholesale Co-Operative Society
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/18TH POUSHA, 1936 R.F.A.No. 337 of 2005 ( D) ----------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S.NO. 192/1997 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR DATED 17-02-2005) APPELLANT IN R.F.A/PLAINTIFF IN SUIT:
--------------------------------------------------------- *FRANCIS, S/O. KANNAMPUZHA DANIEL, EAST FORT GATE, THRISSUR.
(* DIED. ADDL. APPELLANT NO.2 IMPLEADED) *SRI. WILLIAMS DANIEL, S/O. KANNAMPUZHA DANIEL, AGED 47, EAST FORT GATE, THRISSUR IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. APPELLANT NO.2, AS PER ORDER DT. 10.10.2007 ON I.A.NO.3723/2007, AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED APPELLANT.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.M.K.SREEJESH SRI.HARISH R. MENON SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR RESPONDENTS IN R.F.A./DEFENDANTS IN SUIT:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TRICHUR WHOLESALE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.239, REPRESENTED, BY PRESIDENT.
2. TRICHUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE TRICHUR WHOLESALE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, STORES LTD.NO.239, THRISSUR.
R1&R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN R2 BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR SRI.K.A.SREEJITH SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS SRI.V.N.HARIDAS THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.T.O.
St/-
P.N. RAVINDRAN & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------ R.F.A. No.337 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of January, 2015
JUDGMENT
P.N. Ravindran, J.
The learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo dated 12.12.2014 stating that the disputes between the parties have been settled out of court, that the first respondent has vacated the plaint schedule property and thereupon the Thrissur Corporation has granted a licence in favour of additional appellant No.2., who is now in possession of the premises and therefore, the appeal may be dismissed as settled out of court. In the light of the said memo, the appeal is dismissed as settled out of court.
Sd/- P.N. RAVINDRAN JUDGE Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE //true copy// P.S. To Judge St/- TO JUDGE