C.Chandrasekharan v. C.Chandrika

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/22ND SRAVANA, 1937 RP.No. 691 of 2015 () ---------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RSA.NO. 393/2015 DATED 17-06-2015) ------------------ REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

--------------------------------------------------------- C.CHANDRASEKHARAN,S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, RESIDING AT 'KANAKALAYAM', KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM, P.O.PINARAYI, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN RESPONDENT/APPELLANT:

------------------------------------------- C.CHANDRIKA, D/O.KUNHIKANNAN, RESIDING AT KALLARAKANDY HOUSE, P.O NETTUR, THALASSERY AMSAM, MANNAYAD DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 105.

BY ADVS.SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.No.691 of 2015 in R.S.A.No. 393 of 2015.

= = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of August, 2015.

O R D E R The petitioner seeks to review the judgment in R.S.A.No.393 of 2015 dated 17.6.2015. The petitioner is the respondent in the said Second Appeal and the same was disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties on 4.6.2015. As per the terms of the compromise, the appellant has agreed that he will abide by the decision of the Sub Court, Thalassery in A.S.No.18 of 2011, which was impugned in the said Second Appeal. As such, the Second Appeal should have been dismissed in the light of the terms of the compromise. Unfortunately, it is seen that the decision in A.S.No.18 of 2011 was set aside

RP.No.691/2015 in RSA.No.393/2015.

and the said appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise. In the circumstance, the judgment in R.S.A.No.393 of 2015 dated 17.6.2015 is reviewed and recalled.

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

Kvs/- // true copy // PA TO JUDGE.