1 CA15261/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Civil Application No. 15261 of 2010 in Second Appeal No. 761 of 2003 Pandu s/o Nivruti Mohite and others Applicants V E R S U S Bhagwat s/o Mahadu Mohite and others Respondents Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the applicants Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3B to 3F Mr. M.V. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2A to 2C CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 5th July, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. As per the direction of this Court, the learned District Judge – I, Latur, verified and recorded the compromise that has taken place between appellants on one side and legal representatives of original respondent No. 3 Shankar Rama Pawar (Respondent Nos. 3-B, 3-C, 3-D, 3-E and 3-F) on the other. These legal representatives of deceased Shankar Rama are still parties to the suit. They appeared before the learned District Judge – I, Latur and made a statement before him that whatever is written in the compromise-deed is accepted by them, thereby they inter alia made a statement that they would withdraw the suit filed by respondent No.3, their predecessor-in-title. They even agreed to do something more beyond the scope of the suit. 3. On perusal of the record produced before me, I am satisfied that the compromise had taken place between the above mentioned five legal representatives of respondent No. 3 on one side and the appellants on the other. However, respondent Nos. 3-B, 3-C, 3-D, 3-E and 3-F engaged an 2 CA15261/2010 Advocate and filed affidavit that they never intended to record the terms which are recorded in the compromise-pursis. They are suggesting that though they were present before the learned District Judge – I, Latur, they did not want to record the compromise, which is now on record. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for them further informed me that respondent Nos. 3-B, 3-C, 3-D, 3-E and 3-F are not the only representatives of the deceased Shankar Rama, but, he said, there are more legal representatives who are alive and who are not parties to the compromise and who are unjustly deleted from the litigation at the request of the appellants. I am aware that during pendency of the appeal, some of the legal representatives of deceased Shankar Rama were deleted, but that was done at the request of the appellants. The appellants thus took the risk of deleting some of the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 3 Shankar Rama. 5. I am of the view that the present respondent Nos. 3-B, 3-C, 3-D, 3-E and 3-F are estopped from contending anything against the contents of deed of compromise which was read over to them by the learned District Judge – I, Latur. It is pertinent to note that the terms of compromise were written in Marathi and were read over to respondent Nos. 3-B, 3-C, 3-D, 3-E and 3-F. It is also pertinent to note that respondent Nos. 3-B, 3-C, 3-D, 3-E and 3-F were not alone before the learned District Judge – I, Latur, but were accompanied by their Advocate Shri Panditrao Bhaval. In view of this, the terms of compromise recorded shall be binding only on respondent Nos. 3- B, 3-C, 3-D, 3-E and 3-F. In view of this, Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘A’. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/ 3 CA15261/2010