IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA FA No.83 of 1989 RAM ASHISH MAHTO Versus RADHIKA DEVI ----------- 29 24.09.2010 Perused the office note dated 22.09.2010. On the compromise application the office has pointed out three defects. So far item Nos. 1 and 2 of the office note are concerned, an affidavit has been filed today before this Court stating that Kamla Devi @ Kamleshwari Kunwar is the same person. In other words Kamleshwari Kunwar is alias name of Kamla Devi and likewise Bibha Devi is alias name of Bibha Kunwar, Laljhari Devi is alias name of Laljhari Kunwar and Rajesh Kumar is alias name of Rajesh Kumar Singh. The defect pointed out in these two items appears that these defects relate to the name of these very persons. Since alias name has been pointed out by this supplementary affidavit. These defects stand removed. This supplementary affidavit filed today before this Court shall form part of the compromise application. So far item No. 3 is concerned, two Vakalatnamas have been filed and signed by Bibha Kunwar @ Bibha Devi. One Vakalatnama has been filed for self and the Vakalatnama at Flag-‘L’ has been filed, signed by her on behalf of minor Guddu and Baby. The same Vakalatnama is accepted. Accordingly, the said 2 defect also stand disposed of. The learned counsel Sri Sanjay Kumar appears on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant. The learned counsel Sri Abbas Haider appears on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 6. The learned counsel Sri. Bajrangi Lal appears on behalf of respondent nos. 7 and 8. Appellant no. 1(b) Amit Kumar who has sworn affidavit in support of compromise application is also present physically before the Court. Respondent no. 3 Rajesh Kr. Singh who has sworn the affidavit on behalf of the respondent is also present before this Court. No objection has been raised on behalf of any party to the compromise. The learned counsel appearing for the parties submitted that in fact there has been compromised between parties outside the Court and the compromise application has been filed. It is stated the dispute between the parties has now fully been redressed. The learned counsel for the parties submitted that in this compromise, the interest of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have also been fully protected in Clause 9- ‘Ka’ of the compromise application. The learned counsel Mr. Bajrangi Lal accepts this position and he has also got no objection in the recording of the compromise. I find that the compromise between the parties is lawful and there is no impediment in the way of 3 recording the compromise. Accordingly, the compromise application i.e. 8513/2009 is accepted. This first appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise. The compromise application i.e. 8513/2009 shall form part of the decree. sushma (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)