JOGINDER SINGH Vs. SUDHARSHAN KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application has been filed under Rule 3 of Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that the parties have compromised in the revision petition. It is stated that according to the terms of compromise the revision petitioner shall remain in possession up to December 31, 1974 in portion of the house and shall vacate and deliver possession of the same to the respondent on December 31, 1974. It is further stated that the revision petitioner shall pay Rs. 40/- per month for use and occupation of the portion of the house in his possession. In view of the aforesaid compromise, it is prayed that the compromise be attested and the revision be, dismissed. Notice of the application was given to Mr. J. N. Seth for October 1, 1974. On that date Mr. Seth did not appear. The notice of the application was given to the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner has been served for today. He has not appeared in spite of service. The application is supported by an affidavit of Sudarshan Kumari, respondent. There is no ground to disbelieve her affidavit. I therefore, attest the same. In view of the compromise, the revision petition stands dismissed. The respondent landlady shall not be entitled to take possession of the premises in dispute till December 31, 1974. In view of the circumstances of the case. I leave the parties to bear their own costs. Revision dismissed.