IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. NO.4839 OF 2007 DATE OF ORDER: 25.2.2009 Avinash Kumar ....Petitioner(s) Versus Naresh Kumar ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the respondent. JASWANT SINGH, J. (ORAL) Petitioner has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside impugned order dated 21.8.2004 (Annexure P.3) passed by Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat6, Moga in Suit No.12 dated 19.11.2002 titled as Avinash Kumar v. Naresh Kumar and impugned order dated 3.8.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Moga. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the compromise dated 8.5.2003 arrived at between the petitioner Avinash Kumar and respondent Naresh Kumar, the vacant possession of the shop in question was required to be handed over to the petitioner by 30.5.2004 and on this understanding, the suit filed by the petitioner Avinash Kumar for possession of the shop was disposed of by the learned Lok Adalat. It was also stated in the compromise that if Naresh Kumar fails to deliver the possession upto 30.5.2004 then he shall be liable to pay suit damages till the handing over of the possession. It is not disputed before Court that the possession was actually C.R. NO.4839 OF 2007 #2# handed over in December 2007. At the time of hearing on 9.1.2009, the following order was passed by this Court: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if half of the calculated amount of damages involved in the present petition is paid by the respondent. Counsel for the respondent prays for some time to seek instructions. Adjourned to 23.1.2009.” In compliance of the abovesaid orders, Naresh Kumar- respondent, who is present in Court has undertaken to make the payment of Rs.30,000/- as damages in lieu of full and final settlement of the dispute involved in the present revision petition. His statement has been separately recorded. He has undertaken to pay 12 equated monthly instalments w.e.f March 2009 by 7th of every month through account payee cheque in the name of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has accepted this offer and, therefore, prayed for disposing of this revision in terms of the aforesaid statement. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner, which has been accepted by learned counsel for the petitioner, present petition is disposed of. February 25, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE