IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Compromise Petition No. 1895/2008 With A.O. No. 51 of 2003 Madan Mohan Upreti .. Plaintiff/Appellant. Vs. Smt. Khashti Devi .. Defendant/Respondent. Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. U.S. Bhakuni, Advocate for the respondent. Dated: 11-04-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 6-5- 2003 passed by the District Judge Almora, in Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2001, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30-7-2001 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.) Almora in O.S. No. 79 of 1998. 2- In this appeal, a compromise petition has been filed along with a compromise application and an affidavit, by the appellant. The compromise application as well as the affidavit filed in support thereto, contain the signatures of respondent Smt. Khashti Devi. The compromise petition, which has been annexed along with the application and affidavit, also contain the signature of the appellant Madan Mohan Upreti as well as the signature of respondent Smt. Khashti Devi. 3- Appellant Madan Mohan is represented by Sri C.D. Bahuguna, Advocate, and Smt. Khashti Devi respondent is also represented by Sri U.S. Bhakuni 2 Advocate. Respondent Smt. Khashti Devi is present before the Court in person. 4- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the compromise application along with the affidavit filed thereto, as well as the compromise petition, annexed along with the same. 5- The conditions v] c] l] n] ;] of the compromise petition read as follows:- ^^v- flfoy tt] vYeksMk dh vnkyr Onkjk ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMdzh fnukad 30 tqykbZ 2001 dks Ik{kdkjku vfUre #Ik ls Lohdkj dj izFke o f}rh; Ik{k ds e/; fookg foPNsn dks Lohdkj djrs gSA c- izFke Ik{k o f}rh; Ik{k ds e/; ysunsu lEcU/kh fookn lekIr gks x;k gS vkSj izFke Ik{k bZ’oj dks lk{kh dj o bZ’oj dk Hk; ekudj f}rh; Ik{k ds lkFk U;k;iw.kZ Co;okgj djsxkA l- izFke Ik{k ds ikl 3 iqf+=;kW gSa tks fd izFke Ik{k o f}rh; Ik{k ds e/; oSokfgd laLdkj ds QyLo#Ik iSnk gqbZ gS vkSj izFke Ik{k gh mudk ykyu ikyu djrs vkjgk gS vkSj f}rh; Ik{k blls lUrq”V gSA n- f}rh; Ik{k dh ;g gkfnZd bPNk gS fd tc dHkh izFke Ik{k o f}rh; Ik{k dh iqf=;ksa dk ik.khxzg.k laLdkj gks] izFke Ik{k] f}rh; Ik{k dks mlesa ‘kkfey gksus dh vuqefr ns ns vkSj izFke Ik{k us bl ckr dks Lohdkj dj fy;k gSA ;- izFke Ik{k us ;g Hkh Lohdkj dj fy;k gS fd fookg foPNsn ds okotwn og f}rh; Ik{k dks viuh iqf=;ksa ls fo’ks”k R;ksgkj o iz;kstu ij feyus dh vuqefr nsxkA^^ 6- I am of the view that this Second Appeal be decided in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties. 7- Accordingly, the Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 6.5.2003, passed by the 3 District Judge, Almora, in C.A. No. 4 of 2001, is set aside and that of the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge(S.D.), Almora, dated 30-7-2001, in S.O. No. 79 of 1998, is confirmed. The compromise petition filed before this Court shall form part of the decree. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 4