1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.252 of 2005. Sampat Singh son of Shri Munni Lal Sukhlecha VERSUS Dhanpat Singh son of Shri Munni Lal Sukhlecha (since deceased) through His Lrs. 1/1 – Rajendra Sukhlecha and Others Date of Order :::: 2nd February, 2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. M.K. Jain, Counsel for the Defendant-Appellant Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, Counsel for the Plaintiff-Respondents. *** By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this regular first appeal, the parties have filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, along with the written compromise entered into between the parties, which is on a stamped paper, notarized and signed by the parties. The compromise has been verified by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court on 03.07.2008. The parties were identified before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court by the learned counsel for the parties. In the application, which has been submitted jointly, 2 it has been prayed that in terms of the aforesaid compromise a decree (final decree) may be passed. It was also prayed that the possession of the respective portions shown in the accompanying map may be handed-over to the respective parties. It was submitted, today before the Court, that in the accompanying map the portion shown in the red colour would be that of the legal representatives of deceased respondent - Dhanpat Singh and the portion shown in the green colour would be that of the appellant – Sampat Singh. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the possession of the respective portions shown in the green and red colour have been handed-over to the parties, An application has been filed by the respondents praying therein that the appellant may be directed to hand-over the vacant possession of the room on the second floor shown in the annexed map to the application bearing No.34067 filed on 11.12.2009. So far as the aforesaid prayer is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the possession of the room has been handed-over to the respondents, which is the subject matter of the prayer clause-A in the application. As such no orders are solicited for the same. So far as the prayer in Clause-B of the aforesaid 3 application bearing no.34067 is concerned, the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, on being instructed by the appellant – Sampat Singh, who is present in-person in the Court has submitted that the appellant would have absolutely no objection and would not raise any obstruction in so far as the constructions in the portion in the possession of the respondents is concerned, more particularly in the stair-case on the ground floor in the area marked in red colour is concerned and in fact on the ground floor respondents have already constructed a stair-case and only the flooring of this portion of the area on the ground floor is required to be done for which the appellant would have no objection and they would not create any obstacle in that. So far as the remaining prayer is concerned regarding the constructions of the wall between the areas shown in red and green colour in the compromise, as agreed under the compromise the appellant has specifically stated that the appellant will not create any obstructions so far as the aforesaid constructions of the wall or closure of doors/windows is concerned on all the floors and the respondents may proceed to construct the wall or close the door/windows. So far as the remaining prayer is concerned, it has been agreed that once the wall is constructed on each of the floors i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th floors neither of the parties would have rights of access or use of any of the portions, which they 4 might have been using earlier prior to this order and all such rights shall cease with immediate effect between the parties i.e. the appellant would have no access to any of the areas shown in red colour in the map annexed with the compromise and the respondents would have no rights in respect of the area shown in the green colour in the map of the disputed property and annexed with the compromise. In the light of the above, the remaining part of the prayer Clause – B stands disposed of. Today, so far as the advance rent for the month of February and March, 2010 realized by the respondents from the tenant is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents has furnished the details of the rent being paid by the tenant in respect of the tenant in the premises and the appellant is satisfied and does not seek any further direction in this behalf. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents has also paid an amount of Rs.3000/- realized as advance rent for the month of February and March, 2010 to the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant today in this behalf. The learned counsel for the defendant-appellant would not hand-over the aforesaid amount to the appellant till such time as the respondent does not inform the learned counsel for the appellant that the constructions in terms of the compromise has been carried out without any obstructions by 5 the respondents. It is expected that the respondents would complete all constructions within a period of two-months from today with the outer limit being up-to 31st March, 2010 and not beyond. In case, the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant does not receive any intimation from the counsel for the respondents during this period up-to 31.03.2010 the learned counsel for the appellant would be free to hand-over the aforesaid amount of Rs.3000/- to the appellant and further appellant shall be entitled to all rents from the tenants thereafter. It is directed that the decree in terms of the compromise filed along with the application bearing No.7510 dated 13.03.2008 be prepared. The compromise and the map annexed therewith shall form part of the decree. The first appeal, the stay application and the two applications, referred to above, stand disposed of in terms of the compromise. There shall be no orders as to costs. (Dalip Singh), J. Ashok/