RSA No.453 of 2006. 13.08.2010 Present: Appellant No.2 Sanjeev Kumar with Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, for the appellants. Respondents No.1 and 2 with Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. RSA No.453 of 2006 and CMP No. of 2010. The instant Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants having failed in both the Courts below. In fact, the plaintiff/respondents had filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction qua the land comprised in Khata/Khatoni No.6/7, khasra No.331, measuring 0-02-38 Hectares, situated in Chak-Bashla, Tehsil Rohru District Shimla, known as ‘Dimli’ against the defendants/appellants. 2. Learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondents for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant/appellants and were permanently restrained not to raise any construction over the suit land till it is partitioned and further they were also directed to demolish the RCC structure raised over 0-00-11 Hectares of the disputed land. 3. Both the parties to the lis belong to one family. During the pendency of this appeal the parties with the active assistance of their respective Counsel have settled the matter. -2- 4. Now, an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure signed by both the parties and respective Counsel duly supported by the affidavits of plaintiff Sidhu Ram and defendant Sanjeev Kumar, alongwith the agreement/compromise deed have been filed, to pass a compromise decree. 5. Statements of plaintiff Sidhu Ram and Moti Lal respondent No.2 for himself and on behalf of his brother Shamsher Singh in his capacity as Special Attorney have been recorded. 6. The compromise Ext.C-1 was read over and explained to them in vernacular language in the open Court in the presence of their counsel. They admit the correctness thereof. 7. Similarly, the statement of defendant/ appellant Sanjeev Kumar for himself and also the holder of Special Power of Attorney of his father Rattan Dass and brother Rajeev was also recorded. The terms and conditions of the compromise Ext.C-1 were also read over and explained to him in vernacular language and he admits the correctness thereof. 8. According to the parties, they have voluntarily settled the dispute finally qua this appeal. Thus, it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the subject matter of the suit has been adjusted wholly by a lawful -3- agreement/compromise Ext.C-1 in writing and signed by the parties. Therefore, this Court passes a compromise decree on the basis of the compromise Ext.C-1 and orders that agreement/compromise Ext.C-1, Tatima Ext.C-2 and the site plan Ext.C-3 shall form part of the compromise decree. Consequently, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below stand modified and the appeal stands disposed of in the above terms and so also the application(s). Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs. August 13, 2010 (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)