CS No.26 of 2008 & OMP No.104/2010 29.3.2010 Present: Mr. Ajay Vaidya, counsel for the plaintiff. Mr. Anuj Gupta, counsel for the defendants. Both the parties are also in person. The learned counsel for the parties have jointly stated that OMP No. 104 of 2010 has been drafted by them on the instructions of respective parties but inadvertently the application has not been signed by them. They have prayed that they may be allowed to sign OMP No. 104 of 2010 in the Court. The learned counsel for the parties are accordingly allowed to sign the application in the Court and therefore, application has been signed by the learned counsel for the parties in the Court. The statement of Sunil Kukreja, Director of Plaintiff Company has been recorded. He has stated that suit has been compromised as per Ex.P-1. Similar is the statement of defendant No.1 Rajinder who has also stated that suit has been compromised as per Ex.P-1. The learned counsel for the defendants has submitted that he has prepared the application at the instance of defendant No.2 as well as defendant No.1. He has submitted that defendants have no objection, if the suit is decreed in terms of Ex.P-1. The learned counsel for plaintiff has stated that since suit has been compromised as Ex.P-1 between the parties, the amount of court fee affixed on the plaint may be ordered to be refunded to plaintiff in accordance with law. I have gone through the application, affidavits, copy of agreement dated 29.3.2007 filed with Ex.P-1. I am satisfied that the suit has been lawfully compromised. Accordingly, suit is decreed in terms of compromise Ex.P-1 which shall form part of the decree. The suit has been compromised, therefore, court fee be refunded to the plaintiff in accordance with the rules. No costs. All remaining misc. applications are rendered infructuous in view of the disposal of the main suit. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge March 29, 2010 (sks)