\.') IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Civil Appeal No. ^ ^ 9~/2005 §|tJ6[fBENCH APPELLANT/ PLAINTIFF Prahlad S/o Sakhoo Aged about 65 years, Caste Lodhi, Occupation cultivator, R/o Village Bodripara Dadha Tahsil, Bilha Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS VA..< v f> ^(? w ^fs./ •• ^Ar / .• r 1/1 yl'1^1, ^. ^'1 .1.^ a) Chungoo S/o Khorbehara aged about 40 years. ^ t?) Harprasad S/o Khorbehara '7 aged about 35 years. p c) Khori Bai D/o Khorbehara / aged about 37 years dt) Rajnotin Bai D/o Khorbehara aged about 32 years All R/o Village Bhadham Uptahsil Ganiyari Tah. Takhatpur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) !.. Panchoo Bai W/o Girdhari Lal aged about 60 years. ^. Manrakhan S/o Govind age< —^^ about 55 years. ^i£<^c^ ^ 4y Ganesh S/o Govind about 45 years. (..S ?• Aged Govind aged Geerakhan S/o about 50 years. ^^ Godavari Bai D/o Govind aged about 70 years. Respondent no. 2 to 6 occupation -cultivator R/o Village Bodri Tah- Bilha Distt. BilaspurC.G. State of G.G. Through Collector Bilaspur (C.G.) /'• "7 '2- €^ / (^ ^^" SECOND CIVIL APPEAL U/S 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1 IN THE HIGI Second APPELLANT/ PLAINTIFF RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS /V [^. C1-- f\ ^! w :/~^' &/ ^ ^0'^ ^ / ^Yj • t' / •^%f'n 3»A KaMya v/©Iiate ^st M8Kra!sh@ia.» Aged afeoat 55 years, 3.» $xiveai Bai w/b. &at.e ^ri Mulsxw^ &al, aged atottt 3t yeays. ^- B©^a/fe B@derip@ra, 8a®sa,TQfeMl Silha, mstEAe-b BilajBpur <C«G<$<' A^^ll^- -^' .. ^ OAii ^^t^r"~ ^-1 *^^ t^Y ^h'"^r <\N '^ ^] F <nwiT%<nc(» 7^r ^ii^td11!, ^Ti1<ri'li<o,, f®icni^^< ^iii riiin ' •,7?^------<!—s^-'/"""""""— •mioo ^ '^T^T Tr^F.(iGsIs®8<^r) a^r^T"^?^ WT^l^T^niN? ^ h^ Sahu ^^TW^fefW^ S.B. Shii Justice N.K. A: 23.06.2909 Smt..Kiran Jain, Advocate fo| Shri K.R. Nair, Advocate for| Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Heard on I.A. No. 1 i.e. an Shri Nair, learned counsel | submits that the parties have ente^ court in ternis of the deed Aiiil application. Smt. Jain also admits this itito compromise outside the court further prays for withdrawa! ofthe| been settled outside the court betvve] In view of the above, the aj^ this appeal as they already have ent< Accordingly, the appea! is di asto costs. ^pif^lh^^ "^ 'fe^ ^{^[^K ^^H^i^T ;arwal the appellaiit, |the respondents. .av\yer for the State. a^plication under Order 23 Rule 3. appearing for the respondents |ed into compromise outside the lexure R//l filed alongwith the f^ct that the parties have entered |as per deed Annexure R/l. She lappeal as the matter has already ve^n the parties. Ipellant is permitted to withdraw ;4red into compromise. Ibmissed as withdrawn. No order Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ^<j^<fl<l< ^^T ^"ll^ <H-1KIIM—FS/95—11 /2008—1,00,000. ^'^'