P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
The first defendant in O.S.No.88 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Pala has filed this appeal, challenging the decree and judgment passed by the court below, whereby the first respondent/plaintiff was allowed to realise the sum of ₹1,50,000/- with interest and costs from the first defendant-
Panchayat and its assets.
2. The first respondent is the plaintiff in the suit and respondents 2 and 3 are the other defendants therein. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the dispute between the parties was settled by mediation. A memorandum of agreement dated 9.10.2014 entered into between the appellant-Panchayat and the first respondent/plaintiff is also placed on record. The memorandum of agreement discloses that the appellant-Panchayat has agreed to pay in full and final settlement of the claim of the first respondent/plaintiff, the sum of ₹1,50,000/- within an outer limit of three months from the date of the order of this Court, recording the settlement.
3. When the appeal came up for hearing today, Sri Mathew John, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that as the decree was only against the appellant and the first respondent/plaintiff has agreed to receive the sum of ₹1,50,000/- in full and final settlement of his claims, if the said amount is paid within a period of three months from today, the first respondent/plaintiff has no objection in the appeal being disposed of, recording the compromise between the parties. Learned counsel for both sides submitted that respondents 2 and 3 (defendants 2 and 3) are not necessary parties to this appeal and their names may be struck off from the array of parties.
4. In the light of the memorandum of settlement arrived at between the parties, we dispense with notice to respondents 2 and 3 and dispose of the appeal recording the compromise entered into between the parties, namely, that the appellant shall pay within three months from today to the first respondent/ plaintiff, the sum of ₹1,50,000/- towards full and final settlement of his claims in O.S.No.88 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Pala.
5. The decree passed by the court below shall stand modified to the above extent. Needless to say, in the event of failure on the part of the appellant to pay the sum of ₹1,50,000/-, within the time stipulated above, the decree passed by the trial court shall stand restored and the decree holder will be free to execute the decree. The court fee paid on the appeal shall be refunded in full to the appellant. Though the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff submitted that on the terms of section 69A of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959, the court fee paid on the plaint is also liable to be refunded, we find nothing to that effect in the said provision. The mere fact that section 69A deals with refund of court fee paid in a suit, appeal or other proceedings, as the case may be, if it is settled by recourse to section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, does not mean that when an appeal is thus settled, the court fee paid on the plaint also has to be refunded.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. A copy of the memorandum of agreement shall be appended to this judgment and the original shall be preserved in the Registry.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE dsn Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE