AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 248 wordsSanjay K. Agrawal, J
This is admitted appeal on 20-12-2004 in which application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC has been filed for drawing compromise decree.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC for passing compromise decree.
Learned counsel for the parties submit that matter has been compromised as per the compromise deed dated 21-8-2019 and a draft of ₹ 5 lacs has already been handed-over by the defendants / respondents in favour of the plaintiffs / appellants in lieu of their relinquishing their right in the subject property, as such, as per the compromise entered into between the parties, decree be passed in terms of the compromise deed dated 21-8-2019.
I have perused the compromise deed dated 21-8-2019.
After hearing the parties and one of the appellants Deepak Kumar Agrawal as also respondents No.2 & 3 - Girish Chandra Sharma and Trilok Chandra Sharma, I am satisfied that parties have compromised the matter and settled their dispute amicably in terms of compromise deed dated 21-8-2019. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the second appeal is disposed of finally as the matter having been compromised between the parties in terms of the compromise deed dated 21-8-2019. Copy of the compromise deed dated 21-8-2019 be made part of the decree.
With the aforesaid observation, the second appeal stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).
Decree be drawn-up accordingly.
