1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 367/2008 SMT. CHANDRAKANTA LAXMAN GODSHELWAR & OTHERS ..VS.. SMT. DHANBAI KULVIRESHWAR & NANU GHOSE & ONE ANOR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 21, 2011. Heard Shri Shrivastava, for the appellants,, Shri Kartik Shukul for respondent no.1 and Miss. S.H. Bhatia, for respondent no.2. The learned counsel for the parties state that they have filed a compromise petition in this court under the provisions of Order 23 rule 3 of C.P.C. The same is numbered as C.A.S. No.140/2011. The compromise petition is signed by the appellant no.1 and 3 and also by the counsel for the appellants. So also the compromise petition is signed by the counsel for the respondent no.1 and the counsel for the respondent no.2. The compromise petition is signed by the power of attorney holder for the respondent no.1 and the power of attorney holder for petitioner no’s 2 and 4.. It is necessary to note that a suit was instituted by the appellant and the respondent no.2 for possession of the suit property by claiming ownership over the same. The appellants/ plaintiffs and the respondent no.2 were unsuccessful in the suit and the trial court dismissed the suit. The appellants filed a first appeal against the order passed by the trial court and one of the plaintiffs / respondent no.2 was arrayed as respondent no.2 to the first appeal. The appellants lost in the first appeal also. This second appeal arises from the judgments 2 passed by the trial court and the first appellate court dismissing the suit filed by the appellants and the respondent no.2. It is submitted on behalf of the parties that the parties have compromised the matter on the terms stated in the compromise petition. The respondent no.1 has handed over a cheque for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the appellant drawn on ICICI Bank, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi and the appellants who are present in the court today acknowledge the receipt of the said cheque. In lieu of the said amount the appellants agree that they do not have any right, share and interest in the suit property and the respondent no.1 is the exclusive owner of the same. I have personally talked to the appellant no.1, appellant no.3 and the appellant number s2 and 4 through their power of attorney holder, the appellant no.1. So also I have asked the power of attorney holder for the respondent no.1 whether he is agreeable with the terms stated in the compromise petition. The appellants as well as the power of attorney holder for the respondent no.1 have stated that they are ad-idem over the terms mentioned in the compromise petition. The terms in the compromise petition appear to be fair and reasonable. Miss. Bhatia, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has stated that the respondent no.2 has no objection in regard to the compromise effected between the parties. As it is, the respondent no.2 has not not filed the appeal and he is merely arrayed as party-respondent to the appeal filed by the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the second appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise petition. A decree be drawn accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE SMP