IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA No.: 391 of 2004. Decided on: 23.11.2010. _________________________________________________________ Prem Dass. … Appellant. Versus Banku Ram. … Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): CMP No.768 of 2010. The present application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC has been preferred jointly by the parties, though, on 20.10.2010, the following order was passed:- “The respondent is present in the Court in compliance of order dated 10.09.2010. However, he denies the compromise allegedly entered into between the parties. The learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted time to file objections, if any, to the joint application, moved on behalf of the parties, under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, read with Section 151 of the CPC. Be filed within four weeks from today. List on 23.11.2010.” 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 2. Today, the appellant as well as respondent are present in person. The respondent has categorically stated before the Court that he will abide by the terms and conditions enumerated in this application. Consequently, the application is allowed. RSA No.391 of 2004. In view of the disposal of CMP No.768 of 2010, the RSA No.391 of 2004 is also disposed of with a direction that the terms and conditions incorporated in application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC shall form integral part of the judgment and decree. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. November 23, 2010. (sck).