IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA FA No.95 of 2000 NANDA DULAL SAHA & ORS Versus SUNIL KUMAR SAHA & ORS with FA No.244 of 2005 NANDA DULAL SAHA &ORS Versus SUNIL KUMAR SAHA ----------- 13. 29.09.2010. Heard the parties on I.A. No.3528 of 2009. (2) This I.A. has been filed by appellant in F.A. No.95 of 2000 praying therein to expunge the name of appellant No.2 on the ground that the legal representative of the deceased appellant No.2 are already on record. Accordingly, the prayer is allowed and the name of appellant No.2 is expunged from the cause title of memo of Appeal. I.A. No.3528 of 2009 stands allowed. (3) The learned counsel, Sri S. Dey, appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that since after the application under Section 151 C.P.C. at flag ‘A’ filed by the appellant for rejection of the earlier compromise application, the parties have subsequently again compromised and a fresh compromise application has been filed. Therefore, he is not pressing the application under Section 151 at flag ‘A’. Accordingly, the application at flag ‘A’ filed on 30.04.2009 is rejected as not pressed. (4) It appears that the partition suit No.487 of 2 1996 was decreed. Against the preliminary decree, First Appeal No.95 of 2000 was filed by the appellant and against final decree; First Appeal 244 of 2005 has been filed by the same appellant. (5) In both the First Appeals, the parties have jointly filed compromise application under Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. on 21.05.2005. In First Appeal No.244 of 2005, the said compromise application has been numbered as I.A. No.7594 of 2010 whereas the said compromise application filed in First Appeal No.95 of 2000, I.A. No. has not been given by the office. However, from perusal of the office note, it appears that the compromise application has been flagged at flag ‘B’. (6) So far the defect pointed out by the office that no objection certificate has not been taken by learned counsel, Sri S. Dey, appearing on behalf of the appellant from previous learned counsel is concerned, it is submitted that he is appearing from the very beginning in this case. In view of the submission, the defect pointed out by the office is ignored. So far defect pointed out by the office that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has not signed the compromise application on the first page is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the defect has been removed by signing on the first page. (7) So far defect that appellant No.,3, 5, 7 and 3 8 have not signed the compromise application is concerned, it is stated that the appellant No.1 has signed compromise application on their behalf also as the power of attorney holder of appellant No.3, 5, 7 and 8. The learned counsel has also signed the compromise application. In such view of the matter, the defect pointed out by the office is ignored. (8) From perusal of the office note, it appears that except above defects pointed out by the office there is no other defects in the compromise application. Perused the compromise application filed in both the appeals. The compromise applications are in same terms and conditions, I find that the compromise is lawful and by the compromise, the partition suit has been wholly adjusted. I, therefore, find that there is no impediment in recording compromise. Accordingly, the compromise applications in both Appeals are accepted. (9) In the result, the First Appeal No.95 of 2000 and First Appeal No.244 of 2005 are disposed of in terms of the compromise. Compromise application shall form part of the final decree. Sanjeev/- ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)