IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA First Appeal No.478 of 1987 Upendra Singh@ Lallan Singh Versus Chandra Kishore Pd.Singh@Guddu ---------------------------------- 20. 11.11.2011 The learned counsel for the parties submitted that earlier compromise application was filed being I.A. No. 5143 of 2009. Since the said compromise application was defective second compromise application being I.A. No. 7425 of 2009 has been filed and, therefore, the learned counsel for both the parties submitted that the earlier compromise application i.e. I.A. No. 5143 of 2009 may be cancelled. The prayer is allowed. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 5143 of 2009 is rejected as defective. So far the defect No.1 pointed out in the office note dated 9.11.2011 is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that both the parties have filed affidavit in support of the compromise application and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties have signed the compromise application. In view of the above facts this defect is ignored. So far defect No.2 pointed out in the said office note that is respondent No.4 has not appeared is concerned, it is submitted that he died issueless and statement to that effect has been given at paragraph 7 of the compromise application i.e. I.A. No. 7425 of 2009. Therefore, the said defect is also ignored. 2 Regarding defect No.3 another I.A. No. 7517 of 2011 has been filed stating that the learned counsel who was appearing could not be met by the husband of respondent No.6. It is stated that he was never engaged and, therefore, it is prayed that the vakalatnama may be accepted. Prayer is allowed and the vakalatnama filed by the learned counsel Mr. Vipin Kumar is accepted. The defect No.3 thus stands removed. So far defect No.4 is concerned, the learned counsel Mr. Vipin Kumar submitted that vakalatnama has been filed by him on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 5 and 6, therefore, his vakalatnama on behalf of appellant may be ignored. Mr. Vinod Kumar Singh has got power on behalf of the appellant. In such circumstances, the appearance of Vipin Kumar on behalf of appellant is ignored. Thus the defect No.4 also stands removed. So far defect No.5 is concerned, it is stated that the respondent No.1 and respondent No.4 both have died issueless and a statement to that effect has been made in paragraph 6 and 7 of the compromise application. Therefore, the defect No.5 is also ignored. Except the above defects no other defect has been pointed out by the office. The Partition Suit No. 199 of 1985 was filed by the plaintiff which was decreed in part by the court below and against the 3 preliminary decree the present appeal has been filed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as respondent submitted that because of the intervention of the well wisher now the parties have amicably settled their disputes outside of the Court and compromised the matter. According to their compromise they have filed also the present compromise application. According to the settlement between the parties disputed properties have been divided between them and separate schedule has been allotted which has been detailed in the compromise application. Since the parties have lawfully compromised the case regarding the whole of the subject matter of the suit there is no impediment in recording the compromise. I therefore, hereby allow the compromise application and record the compromise. The compromise application shall form part of the final decree. Accordingly, this first appeal is allowed and the partition suit is decreed in terms of compromise. Let final decree be prepared and the compromise application shall form part of the final decree. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)