/ 6 and 7 % 09.09.2011 Present: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Advocate with Ms. Ruchira Arora, Advocate for the appellants in RSA No.83/2011 and Advocate for the respondent in RSA No.105/2011 Mr. J.K. Jain, Advocate for the respondent in RSA No.83/2011 and Advocate for the appellant in RSA No.105/2011 + RSA Nos.83/2011 and 105/2011 1. Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common order by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 28.3.2011 passed by Sh. ^ Ajay Goel, SCJ-cum-RC (Central), Delhi and re-affirming the terms of compromise entered into between the parties under Order 23 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in the earlier suit for injunction and which was disposed of as per the compromise on 23.5.1990 by the Court of Sh.Y.S. Jonwal, Civil judge, Delhi. The terms of the compromise are reproduced in internal page 2 of the order of the first Court i.e. Sh. Dig Vinay Singh, Civil Judge, Delhi dated 11.12.2002. The appellants in RSA No.83/2011 will close the door and the openings towards the property of the respondent Sh. Pyare Lai, however, it is agreed that the appellants in RSA No.83/2011 for the time being can have window on the second floor of 5"^ the property towards the property of Sh. Pyare Lai, however, if in future Sh. Pyare Lai wants to construct on his plot and also a construction may be required right up to the boundary of the plot of Sh. Pyare Lai (and which is also the boundary of the plot of the appellants in RSA No.83/2011) only then in those limited circumstances would the appellants in RSA No.83/2011 be required to close the window which would open towards the side of the property of Sh. Pyare Lai. Parties agree to abide by the compromise dated 21.5.1990 entered into in the Court of Sh. Y.S. Jonwal, Civil Judge, Delhi. RSA Nos.83/2011 & 105/2011 page 1 of 2 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified w 2. It Is clarified that requirement of closing of the door and the openings are only with respect to that portion of the common boundary wall of the properties of both the parties and where the boundary wall of the appellants in RSA No.83/2011 does not adjoin the green portion of property of Sh. Pyare La! (green portion being the portion as mentioned in the order dated 23.5.1990 of Sh. Y.S. Jonwal, Civil Judge, Delhi) then with respect to this portion of the boundary wall which does not adjoin the green portion there is no restriction on the heirs of Sh. Bhoop Singh being the appellants in RSA No.83/2011 for making the openings. The appellants in RSA No.83/2011 will close the door and openings except for the window on the second floor of the property which abuts the green portion within a period of three months from today. The consent which is given to this order on behalf of the counsel for the appellants in RSA No.83/2011 is on the basis of instructions received from Sh. Avdesh Yadav son of the appellant No.l, who is present in person. . 3. The appellant in RSA No.105/2011 Sh. Pyare La! accordingly withdraws his appeal in view of aforesaid consent order. 4. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid consent order. SEPTEMBER 09, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne RSA Nos.83/2011 & 105/2011 page 2 of 2