1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.66/1994 Dr. Dattasingh s/o Mansingh Rathod ...Versus... Dayaram s/o Amrit Gajbhiye (Dead) through Lrs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri R.L. Khapre, Adv. for appellant] [Shri R.R. Rathod, Adv. for respdt. Nos.1 to 6] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 16.12.2008 Advocate Shri Khapre appears for appellant. Advocate Shri Rathod appears for respondent Nos.1 to 6 and undertakes to file Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 6 today during the course of the day. Both learned Counsel under the instructions from their respective clients have made a statement that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties to the effect that the appellant does not want to prosecute his suit i.e. Special Civil Suit No.542/2994 before the trial Court and at the same time he has already delivered possession of the suit property to the respondents. 2 Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6 further states that in fact a compromise deed has been duly prepared and signed by the parties to this appeal or the parties to the suit. Xerox copy of the said compromise is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification. Xerox copy of power of attorney executed by five members of the family of respondents in favour of one Shri Nitin s/o Dayaram Gajbhiye is also taken on record and marked “X-1” for identification. Original compromise and original power of attorney are returned to the learned Counsel. In view of the fact that the appellant continued to be in possession of the suit property by virtue of injunction order, issued by this Court on 19.12.1994 and in view of the fact that prima facie this Court found that injunction order could not have been made since the agreement of sale between the parties in so far as aspect of possession is concerned, prima facie appeared to be doubtful as in the earlier paragraph it is mentioned that the possession would be delivered after completion of sale-deed, but while in the last but one paragraph it is mentioned that possession was being delivered on the date of agreement and that portion appeared to be inserted subsequently, this Court thought 3 of exercising its power of restituting the affected parties, namely, respondent Nos.1 to 6 and the Counsel for the appellant was also put to notice accordingly. The Counsel for appellant had fairly stated that out of total consideration of rupees three lac as agreed, he was in possession by paying earnest amount of Rs.2500/- only. But then the parties to the appeal have arrived at compromise and since the land has been returned to the respondents, I do not think this Court should go ahead with the intention of making order for restitution or compensation, since the compromise-deed shows that respondents are satisfied with Rs.10,000/- towards compensation. The appellant is said to be a heart patient and the respondents are also living their life peacefully. There is no point in disturbing the peace in between the parties by making any further orders in the matter of restitution or compensation. In view of this, since I find that the compromise is arrived at between the parties is bonafide and satisfactory and since the respondents are satisfied with the same so also the appellant, I dispose of this appeal in terms of the said compromise. The appellant and the respondents now to take steps to get the suit disposed of in terms of the compromise within a period 4 of four weeks from today. Appeal From Order is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE ssw