CS No.23 of 2008 & OMP No.105/2010 29.3.2010 Present: Mr. Ajay Vaidya, counsel for the plaintiff. Mr. Anuj Gupta, counsel for the defendants. Both the parties are also in person. The learned counsel for the parties have jointly stated that that OMP No. 105 of 2010 has been drafted by them on the instructions of respective parties but inadvertently the application has not been signed by them. They have prayed that they may be allowed to sign OMP No. 105 of 2010 in the Court. The learned counsel for the parties are accordingly allowed to sign the application in the Court and therefore, application has been signed by the learned counsel for the parties in the Court. The application is supported by affidavits of Sunil Kukreja, Director of the Plaintiff Company and Baldev defendant No.1. The statement of Sunil Kukreja, Director of Plaintiff Company has been recorded. He has proved compromise Ex.P-1 and stated that suit may be decreed in terms of Ex.P-1. Similar are the statements of Baldev and Naresh Defendants who have also stated that suit may be decreed in terms of compromise Ex.P-1. The learned counsel for the parties have stated that the suit may be decreed in terms of compromise Ex.P-1 and OMP No. 105 of 2010 may be made part of the decree. The learned counsel for plaintiff has stated that since suit has been compromised between the parties, the amount of court fee affixed on the plaint may be ordered to be refunded to plaintiff in accordance with law. I have gone through the application and the affidavits filed in support of the Ex.P-1. I am satisfied that the suit has been lawfully compromised. Accordingly, suit is decreed in terms of compromise Ex.P-1 which shall form part of the decree. The suit has been compromised, therefore, court fee be refunded to the plaintiff in accordance with the rules. No costs. All remaining misc. applications are rendered infructuous in view of the disposal of the main suit. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge March 29, 2010 (sks)