IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.238 of 1996 1. LACHMINIA DEVI wife of Chokat Sah, resident of Village –Bilaspur P.S. Ramnagar, District Champaran. 2. Awadh Kishore Sah @ AwadhSah son of late Sita Sah Prahlad Sah @ Prahlad Prasad son of late Sita Sah. Both resident of village Bankatwa, P.S. Bagaha, Dist West Champaran …plaintiff…. Respondent Ist party ……Appellants Versus 1.DEGREE COLLEGE , Bagaha at Bankatwa, P.S. Bagaha District- West Champaran through its Secretary. 2 Nand Kishore Prasad Srivastava son of late Yogendra Prasad Srivastava, resident of Bankatwa P.S. Bagaha, district-WestChamparanDefendant Ist party…..Appellants …….respondent ist party. 3 Rameshwar Prasad Yadav son of Hari Prasad Yadav, resident of village Dhakdahi P.S. Semra, District- West Champaran Defendant 2nd paprty….. Respondent 2nd party. ----------- 9 30.11.2010 I.A. No. 4890 of 2010 The present interlocutory application has been filed under order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permitting the parties to compromise the suit/appeal. The appellants herein-plaintiffs brought Title Suit No. 29 of 1985 in the court of learned Munsif, Bagaha, West Champaran, seeking declaration of their right and title over the suit land and for setting aside the Samarpannama dated 21.9.1982. The suit was decreed by the learned trial court. Thereafter defendant Ist party, who are respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the present appeal, preferred Title Appeal No. 45 of 1992 which was allowed by a judgment and decree dated 25th May 1996 by learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, West 2 Champaran, Bettiah and judgment and decree of the trial court was reversed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid appellate order, the plaintiffs preferred this second appeal. The present compromise petition has been filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) and respondent nos. 1 and 2 (defendant Ist set) stating therein that this appeal may be disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived therein. It has been submitted that respondent no.3 is the purchaser of some portion of suit land from plaintiff no.1, therefore, his entire claim is rested on the basis of claim of plaintiff-appellant no.1, and ,as such, he is not required to sign the compromise petition. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 submits that he has no objection to the aforesaid compromise arrived at between the appellants herein and respondent Ist party herein. By the compromise petition the claim of the plaintiffs have been accepted by the defendants respondent Ist party. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and after considering their submission and all the materials available on record this court is satisfied that the present appeal is fit to be disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Accordingly, the compromise petition is accepted. I.A. No. 4890 of 3 2010 is allowed. Consequently, this second appeal stands disposed of in terms of compromise. The compromise petition will form part of the decree. There shall be no order as to costs. Rahman/ (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)