1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.W. No. 112/2011 AND Writ Petition No. 4522/2010 (Balram R. Sahu VERSUS Smt. Hirabai T. Chavhan & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.V. Sohoni, counsel for the R-1 to 6. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 21 , 2011 . The petitioner and the respondents have filed an application for recording of the compromise. The application for recording of compromise is signed by the power of attorney holder for the petitioner and the respondent nos.1 to 6. The writ petition was also filed by the petitioner through the power of attorney holder only. The application for recording of compromise is signed by the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents. The respondent nos.1 to 5 have executed a special power of attorney empowering the respondent no.6 to appear before this Court during the hearing and also give consent on their behalf for recording of compromise. A photo copy of the special power of attorney executed by the respondent nos.1 to 5 in favour of the respondent no.6 is filed along with the application for recording of compromise. The power of attorney holder for the petitioner and the power of attorney holder for the respondents are personally present in the Court, today. On a query by the Court about the settlement of the dispute between the parties in terms of the 2 compromise, the power of attorney holder for the petitioner and the power of attorney holder for the respondent nos.1 to 5 i.e. the respondent no.6, have informed the Court that they are ad-idem over the terms mentioned in application for recording the compromise. Shri Joharapurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sohoni, the learned counsel for the respondents have identified the power of attorney holder for the petitioner and the respondent no.6, who is the power of attorney holder for the respondent nos.1 to 5. I have perused the terms and conditions of the compromise. They appear to be just and reasonable. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the compromise. C.A.W. No.112/2011 is also disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE APTE