MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/ appellants feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree of dismissal of their suit No.S- D/1/1995, passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra on 22nd June, 2000.

(2.) On earlier occasion the matter was fixed for hearing. An offer for settlement was mooted by Shri K.D. Sood learned counsel for the defendant/respondents. The plaintiff/appellants were also not averse to it. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on various dates to settle the modalities to arrive at an amicable settlement. Finally the parties settled the dispute and on 24th September, 2010, parties took time for filing written compromise.

(3.) Today the parties have jointly moved an application Ext. CA under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure containing the terms and conditions for recording the compromise to the satisfaction of the Court. The Statements of the appellants S/Sh. Madan Lal, Chuni Lal, Pawan Kuamar, and Sanjeev Kumar [ for himself and also the Special Power of Attorney holder of S/Sh. Mehar Chand, Pawan Kumar, Pankaj Kumar and Pushpa Devi] have been recorded separately. They stated on oath that the compromise in question has been arrived at by them with the defendant-respondents with full power and possession of their senses without any fear or favour, for their own betterment and their progeny. They have agreed for passing a compromise decree on the basis of the terms and conditions contained in Ext. C-A, which shall form part of the decree.