S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.80/1985 LRs of Bhanwar Lal Vs. LRs of Meena Devi & Ors. Date of Order :: 7th August 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Ramit Mehta, for the appellants. Mr.R.R.Nagori ) Mr.Sushil Bishnoi for) Mr.Manoj Bhandari ) for the respondents. .... BY THE COURT: Civil suit for recovery of possession, declaration and perpetual injunction (CO No.13/1980) having been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bikaner on 11.05.1985, the unsuccessful plaintiff Bhanwar Lal filed this first appeal on 06.08.1985 arraying the defendants Nos. 1 to 4, Smt. Meena Devi, Bheru Lal, Jai Narain and Lal Chand as respondents No.1,2, 3 and 4 respectively. This appeal was admitted for consideration on 02.09.1985; and on 01.11.1985, the contesting respondent No. 1 filed her cross-objections in relation to some of the findings of the Trial Court. The plaintiff-appellant Bhanwar Lal thereafter expired and his legal representatives were substituted as appellants in his place. The contesting respondent No.1 Meena Devi also expired and for representation of her estate, the respondents 1 Nos. 1/1 and 1/2, Mahesh Kumar and Dinesh Kumar, were ordered to be substituted by the order dated 15.09.2006 with similar substitutions in the connected cross-objections. It has been pointed out on behalf of the respondent No.1/2 Dinesh Kumar that he has not claimed himself to be the legal representative of the deceased defendant-respondent Smt. Meena Devi and has admitted the respondent No.1/1 Mahesh Kumar to be her adopted son. The respondent No.2 Bheru Lal was also reported to have expired and steps having not been taken in his relation, the appeal abated against him as ordered on 10.10.2003. It has also pointed out that the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, Jai Narain and Lal Chand, too have no direct interest in this litigation and nobody is appearing on their behalf. An application (IA No.9052/2008) has been moved in this case stating that the contesting parties have arrived at a compromise. While referring to the aforementioned background facts, it has further been stated that Smt. Indra, wife of Shri Jagdish Prasad and daughter of late Shri Bhanwarlal, has also expired. The said Smt. Indra was substituted on record as one of the legal representatives of the deceased appellant Bhanwal Lal but has been described as the legal representative of Meena Devi in paragraph 5 of the said application; and another application (IA No.9895/2008) 2 has been moved today with the submissions that such description of Smt. Indra had been for a typographical error in the said paragraph 5 of the compromise filed before the Court. It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the name of the said Smt.Indra may be ordered to be struck off the record. In view of the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the name of the appellant No.1/6 Smt. Indra is ordered to be deleted from the array of the parties and a note to that effect be put against her name. It is further prayed on behalf of the parties that in terms of their compromise as stated in the aforesaid application (IA No. 9052/2008), the legal representatives of the appellant wish to withdraw the present appeal as well as the original civil suit bearing No. 13/1980 and the legal representative of the respondent No. 1 also wish to withdraw the cross-objections filed in this appeal. It has also been stated that Mahesh Kumar shall withdraw the other civil original suit bearing number 237/2003 (New number 198/2005) pending in the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Bikaner. The application aforesaid (IA No. 9052/2008) in the form of deed of compromise has been signed by the surviving legal representatives of the deceased appellant Bhanwar Lal and by the legal representative of the respondent No.1 Meena Devi; 3 and has been attested by the Notary Public at Bikaner on 09.07.2008. Counsel for the parties prays for disposal of the matter in terms of the compromise between parties. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the appellants are permitted to withdraw Original Civil Suit No.13/1980; and the suit stands dismissed as withdrawn. The suit itself having been withdrawn, the present appeal and related cross-objections are rendered redundant and are dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed. No costs. Interlocutory applications aforesaid also stand disposed of. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni- 4