IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 121 of 2008 Date of decision: 15.5.2008 Joginder Kaur and others Petitioners. Versus Teg Singh Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For respondent. Nemo. Per Deepak Gupta, J. This petition is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nahan, dated 13th March, 2008, whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners for disposing of the suit in terms of the compromise allegedly executed between the parties on 24th July, 2002. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs herein filed a suit for declaration in respect of their rights and title to the suit property consequent to a family arrangement allegedly arrived between the parties in January, 1970. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 measuring 27.9 bighas at village Pipalwala was exclusively allotted to the plaintiffs and defendant No.5 in terms of the family arrangement. The plaintiffs led evidence. Defendants also led evidence and one witness was examined when the case fixed for cross- examination of the defendants witness. The plaintiff filed an application that in fact the matter had been compromised between all the brothers on 24th July, 2002. The original compromise was not placed on record but some copy thereof has been placed on record. The contesting defendants in reply denied that any such compromise had been entered into. The learned trial Court has rejected the application. In my view, the learned trial Court rightly held that if the compromise had been arrived at on 24th July, 2002, the plaintiffs would have mentioned about the said compromise during the course of evidence and during the statements of the plaintiffs which were admittedly recorded after the alleged compromise was entered into between the parties. It is also difficult to believe the case of the plaintiffs that the original compromise deed was lost. In a matter where legal proceedings were pending, if a compromise had been arrived at, the party would have immediately approached the Court for disposing of the 3 suit in terms of the compromise. The delay of four years in moving this application also cast a doubt on the execution of such compromise. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the petition and accordingly the same is dismissed, in limine. 15th May, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™