ORDER

CRP No.248/2022 is by a third person who sought permission to appeal against the decree based on a compromise arrived at by the parties. Admittedly, he is not a party to the compromise decree or the suit thereof. The allegation is that by virtue of the compromise entered into by the parties, they have agreed to set up a way. It is submitted that under the guise of the said document, they are attempting to cut open a way through his property. Hence the appeal as an aggrieved person. It was rejected by the trial court, finding that the appellant/petitioner is not an aggrieved person. The legal position is very much settled by this court inThottappayil Suresan and Others v. A.P.Gopalakrishnan and Others ( 2019 (1) KHC 284 ). It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they have initiated yet another proceeding, a separate suit for declaration and it is pending consideration. Somehow it has ended in dismissal for non-prosecution and thereafter an application was submitted for restoring the same, which was allowed.

The other CRP No.168/2021 by the defendant therein is against the restoration. Hence the restoration deserves no interference and CRP 168/2021 w