IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA FA No.71 of 1996 KISHORI PRASAD GUPTA & ORS Versus JANKI DEVI & ORS ----------- 27. 20.01.2011 At the outset, the learned counsel Mr. Shashi Dhar Jha appearing on behalf of the appellant seeks permission to delete the name of the respondent nos.7 and 8 from the cause title of memo of appeal. Prayer is allowed. The learned counsel for the appellant shall delete their names during the course of the day. From perusal of the office note dated 13.12.2010, it appears that although, the respondent nos.4(a), 4(b), 5 and 6 have signed the compromise application but their learned counsel has not signed on it. The learned counsel Mr. Sunil Kumar No.5, who appears on their behalf seeks permission to sign the compromise application. Permission is accorded. The further objection of the office is that the respondent nos.1 and 2 have not signed the compromise application. So far this objection is concerned, a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellant bringing on record the power of attorney executed by respondent nos.1 and 2 in favour of respondent no.3, Anil Kumar Thakur giving him power to either sell the property or compromise the case pending before this Court i.e. this First Appeal. 2 It appears that the said respondent no.3 has signed the compromise for self and on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 also. So far the objection of the office that the signature of respondent no.3 and 6 appearing on the Vakalatnama do not tally with their signature in compromise application is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that in the compromise application both of them have signed in Hindi whereas in the Vakalatnama, both of them have signed in English and therefore, the signatures are not tallying. With the permission of the Court, the appellant has now deleted the name of respondent nos.7 and 8 from the cause title of memo of appeal. The learned counsel, Mr. Sunil Kumar No.5 has singed the compromise application. Now, therefore, there is no defect as on the basis of power of attorney filed by the appellant, the respondent no.3 has singed on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2. In such view of the matter, the defects pointed out by the office stand removed. This Interlocutory Application No.8881 of 2010 has been filed under Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C. singed by the parties and their respective counsels. It appears that in support of the compromise application, both the parties have also filed affidavits. The First Appeal has been filed against the 3 judgment and preliminary decree dated 02.12.1995 passed by Sri Bhupendra Singh, the learned Subordinate Judge I, Saharsa in title suit no.52 of 1989 decreeing the plaintiff-respondent’s suit. The defendants, first set and the defendants, third set have filed this appeal against the said judgment and preliminary decree. In terms of the compromise, now, the parties have settled their dispute and compromise application has been filed. Perused the compromise application and I am satisfied that the whole suit has been adjusted by this compromise between the parties and I find no impediment in recording the said compromise arrived at between the parties to this appeal. The parties have compromised with relation to the subject matter of the suit giving rise to this appeal. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the compromise is accepted and this First Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise. The compromise application i.e. I.A. No.8881 of 2010 shall form part of the final decree. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)