CS No. 113 of 2009. 2.5.2011 Present: Mr. Rakesh Thakur, counsel for the plaintiffs. Mr. T.S. Chauhan, counsel for defendants No. 1 & 2. Mr. Abhishek Sood vice Mr. Ramakant Sharma, counsel for defendants No. 3 and 4. OMP No. 128 of 2011 and CS No. 113 of 2009. This is an application for decreeing the suit in terms of compromise. It has been stated that plaintiff No. 1 is the general power of attorney holder of plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 and is present in the court and has been duly identified by his counsel. It has also been stated that defendant No. 2 is the general power of attorney holder of defendant No. 1 and is also present in the court and has been duly identified by his counsel. The defendants No. 3 and 4 are also present in the court and identified by Mr. Abhishek Sood, Advocate vice Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. It has been stated by learned counsel for the parties that parties have amicably settled the dispute outside the court and have also prepared the application. Let the statements of plaintiff No. 1, defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 be recorded. Statements of plaintiff No. 1, defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 have been recorded. The parties have amicably settled the dispute and have prepared compromise/ application under O. 23, Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC and have prayed through their counsel for decreeing the suit in terms of the compromise. I have gone through the statements so also the application under O. 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC. There is no impediment in decreeing the suit in terms of compromise. The compromise appears to be lawful. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of compromise/ application under O. 23, Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC. The compromise/ application alongwith affidavits of plaintiff No. 1, defendants No. 2, 3, 4 shall form part of the decree. The court fee be refunded to the plaintiffs in accordance with law. The parties shall bear their own costs. May 2, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.