IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 915 of 1985 Date of decision : May 18, 2010 Dara alias Sardara and another ....Appellants versus Nihal Singh alias Nihala ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the appellants Mr. GS Punia, Advocate, for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Parties have effected written compromise dated 16.4.2010 which is now marked as Annexure-X. The compromise has been signed/thumb marked by appellants and respondent except Roshni legal representative No. (xi) and minor legal representatives of appellant no. 1. However, learned counsel for the appellants states that both the parties including all legal representatives of appellant no. 1 have effected aforesaid compromise. In token thereof, signatures of counsel for both the parties have also been obtained today in the court on the said compromise. Legal representatives no. (iv), (v) and (vi) of appellant no. 1 are minors. Learned counsel for the appellants has annexed a certificate with the compromise that the compromise is for the benefit of the said minors. Affidavit of mother and next friend of the said minors has also been annexed with CM No. 12157.C of 2009 affirming that the compromise is for the benefit of the Regular Second Appeal No. 915 of 1985 -2- minors. In view of affidavit of next friend of the minors and certificate given by the counsel for the appellants that the compromise is for the benefit of the minors and also keeping in view the terms of the compromise, I am satisfied that the compromise is for the benefit of the aforesaid minors. The appeal has, thus, been lawfully compromised. In view of compromise, the appeal is disposed of in terms of written compromise dated 16.4.2010, Annexure-X which shall form part of the judgment and decree sheet. CM No. 12157 and 12158.C of 2009 The applications stand disposed of in view of above order passed in the main appeal. ( L.N. Mittal ) May 18, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'