IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.211 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:25.11.2010 Kuljinder Singh and another .....Appellants Vs. Surjit Singh .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.S. Pandher, Advocate for the respondent. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court whereby while accepting the appeal, suit of the plaintiff- respondent was decreed for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 3.7.2003 with regard to the suit land and the appellants were directed to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff- respondent on receipt of balance sale consideration. The aforesaid balance sale consideration of a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- was deposited by the plaintiff- respondent with the trial Court and the same is lying deposited. It is relevant to mention here that C.M. No.12409-C of 2010 was filed in this Court for disposing of the appeal in view of the compromise effected between the parties on 14.10.2010. The parties were also present before this Court on 16.11.2010 and have accepted the factum of compromise between them but due to mistake in clause (4) of the agreement, counsel for the parties had sought adjournment to enable them to place on record a fresh compromise. R.S.A. No.211 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Now C.M. No.13079-C of 2010 has been filed by the plaintiff- respondent wherein it has been stated that the mistake which was occurred in clause (4) of the earlier agreement, has been corrected and a photocopy of the fresh compromise has been placed on record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has also placed on record the original of the aforesaid compromise which is taken on record as Ex.CX1. According to the aforesaid compromise, the appellants have paid a sum of Rs.9 lacs to the plaintiff- respondent who has relinquished his claim of specific performance of the agreement dated 3.7.2003 in full and final settlement of the claims arising out of the said agreement. It has been further agreed between the parties that a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- which is lying deposited in the Government Treasury shall be divided equally between the parties, i.e. Rs.1,35,000/- in favour of both the appellants and Rs.1,35,000/- in favour of Surjit Singh – respondent. The parties are present before this Court and are duly identified by the respective counsel. Their statements have been recorded separately. They have accepted the factum of the compromise Ex.CX1 and have stated that they have no objection if this appeal is accepted and the suit of the plaintiff- respondent for specific performance of the land in question is dismissed and further that the amount of Rs.2,70,000/- lying deposited with the Government Treasury is paid to the appellants and the respondent equally as aforesaid. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise CX1 which shall be a part of the decree. Disposed off. November 25, 2010 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) renu JUDGE