MC 2648/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A K GOSWAMI The present appellant and the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who are the only responden ts in the appeal, filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, duly signed by them, along with an affidavit praying for passing a decree in terms of the comp romise arrived at between the parties. The application was jointly filed by the counsel for the parties, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 2648/2010. The said application came to be dismissed for default on 04.11.2010 as none had app eared to press the said Misc. Case. An application for restoration of Misc. Case 2648/2010 was filed and the same was registered as Misc. Case No. 298/2015. Another application for condon ation of delay in filing the said application for restoration of Misc. Case No. 2648/2010 was filed and the same was registered as Misc. Case No. 299/2015. By an order passed today in Misc. Case No. 298/2015, Misc. Case No. 2648 /2010 was restored to file after condoning the delay in preferring the applicati on for restoration in Misc. Case No. 299/2015. Heard Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard M r. K. M. Haloi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties had amicably settled the dispute in the manner as reflected in paragraph 5 of the application under Orde r 23 Rule 3 CPC. It is submitted by them that the learned Courts below had gran ted 2/6th share to the appellant in respect of the suit property and 1/6th share to each of the respondents and that the appellant is the brother of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who are his sisters. It is submitted that, in terms of the comprom ise settlement, respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have relinquished right, title and in terest in respect of their respective shares in favour of the appellant and that the respondent No. 1, Sayeda Nurjahan Begum, will be entitled to 1 Bigha of lan d out of the 8 Bigha of land mentioned in Schedule-’ga’ with the boundaries as s pecified in paragraph 5 of the aforesaid application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the sum and substance of the comprom ise is that except for the 1 Bigha of land in Schedule-’ga’, the appellant will be entitled to have right, title and interest in respect of the land falling und er Schedule-’ka’, ’kha’ and rest of the land in Schedule-’ga’. Paragraph 5 of the application, as it stands, reads as follows: 5. That, the appellant and the respondents now have arrived into a mutual agree ment to resolve their dispute relating to the suit and they have settled their dispute mutually and as per settlement of their dispute all the four sisters, th e contestant respondents, who are defendants No. 2 to 5 in the T.S. No. 12 of 19 94 have relinquished their right, title and interest in respect of their respect ive shares declare of while decreeing the suit partially in favour of the appell ant, except in respect of 1 (one) Bigha of land covered by Dag No. 103 in K.P. P atta No. 16 of village Dalbari Kaniha under Mouza Pub Banbhag mentioned in the s chedule ’ga’ of the plaint which the respondent No. 1, Sayeda Nurjahan Begum sha ll have her right, title and interest. Sayeda Nurhahan Begum shall enjoy her rig ht, title and interest in respect of the said 1 Bigha of land which is bounded b y East : Sayed Abdul Latif, West: Jahirunuddin Ahmed and Gulam Ahmed, North: Pan chayat Road, South: Gulam Ahmed. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and hav ing regard to the contents of paragraph 5 of the application filed under Order 2 3 Rule 3 CPC, the appeal is disposed of on compromise and the suit is decreed in terms of the compromise as indicated in paragraph 5. The appeal and Misc. Case No. 2648/2010 are disposed of accordingly.