^K^. 1 I]iS^% M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR APPELLANTS/: (Plaintiffs) RESPONDENTS/: (Defen4ant) (Non-applicants) Second Appeal No.28 of 2007 1. Mahabeer Prasad, S/o Late Ganc Sahay, aged 52 years, Occupation Business 2. Arjun Lal, S/o Late Ganga Sahay, aged about 49 years, Occupation Business 3. Bhjmsen, S/o Late Ganga Sahay, aged about 47 years, Occupation Business All residents of Sadar Bazar, Raigarh, Tahsil & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Versus 1. Santosh, S/o Late Brijlal Chamar, Satnami, aged about 32 years, Occupation Labour, R/o Village Amlibhona (Bajrangpara), Tahsil & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Mahabeer, S/o Late Brijlal Chamar, aged about 42 years, Satnami, Occupation Riksha Driver 3. Nanki, S/o Late Brijlal Chamar, Satnami, aged about 37 years, Occupation Labour 4. Bugla, S/o Late Brij Lal Chamar, Satnami, aged about 30 years, Occupation Labour 5. B-sahin Bai, widow of Late Brij Lal Ctiamar, Satnami, aged about 62 years, Occupation House Wife. Non-applicants 2 to 5 residents of Village Amlibhona (Bajrangpara), Tahsil & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 6. Land Acquisition and Sub Divisional Officer, Raigarh (C.G.) 7. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Raigarh(C.G.) {Second appeal underSection 100 ofthe Code ofCivJl Procedure, 1908} Present: Mrs. Hamida Siddjqui, counsel forthe appellants. Ms. Tripti Dewangan, counsel for respondents No.l to 4. Mr. G.D. Vaswani, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents No.6 & 7. All the appellants & respondents No.l to 4 are present in person. Sinale Bench: Hon^ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J Soma ORAL ORDER (4-8-2009) 1. This second appealynder Section 100 of the C.P.C. is directed against the judgment & decree dated 15-12-2006 passedby the 1st Add^ional District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Appeal No.40-A/2005. 2. Counsel for the parties submit that respondent No.5 has already expjred. Counsel for the parties further submit that the parties have entered into compromise and respondents No.l to 4 have agreed that they witl not make any interference in the suit land. 3. No specific terms of compromise has been pleaded or prayed by the parties except that they have entered into compromise. It appears from the compromise application I.A.No.2 that the present cause of action for filing the suit or appeal does not survive. In the light of such situation, the second appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. 4. Consequently, all the interim applicationsstand disposed of. Sd/- T.P. Sharwa Judge m