^1 30 % 21.10.2011 Present: Ms. Shruti Verma, Mr. Atul Shanker Mathur and Mr. Aseem Chaturvedi, Advs. for the Plaintiff along with plaintiff in person. Defendant no. 1 is ex-parte. Mr. Vijay Kuraar Ravi, Adv. for Defendant nos. 2 and 3. + LA. No. 16863/2011 (u/O 23 R 3 CPC) in CS (OS! No. 1227/2008 * By this application plaintiff prays that a compromise decree be passed in view of the settlement arrived at between plaintiff and ^ defendantnos. 2and 3. Terms of the settlementhave been incorporated in the application which is duly signed by the plaintiff and defendant nos. 2 and 3, inasmuch as, it has been supported by their affidavits. I fmd the settlement to be lawful. As regards defendant no. 1 he appeared in Court through his lawyer but failed to file written statement despite opportunity granted to him. Later, he stopped appearing and was proceeded ex-parte. Thus, decree is passed against him under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC, while decree is passed against defendant nos. 2 and 3 in li view of the compromise in the followingterms (a) Sale deed dated 9^^ October, 2007 executed by Late Smt. Murti Devi is declared null and void; (b) A decree of possession is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no.3; (c) Sub Registrar to take notice of the cancellation of Sale Deed dated 9th October, 2007 and to make necessary entries in this regard in the records maintained by him; Signing Date:31.08.2024 17:30:37 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified (d) Revenue authorities to strike off the mutation in favour of defendant no. 3 as carried in the revenue records and enter the name of the plaintiff as owner of the suit property; (e) Parties to bear their own costs. Suit is disposed of in the above terms. All interim applications are also disposed of. October 21, 2011 ga PATHAK, J.