2025:HHC:8935 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COMS No.25 of 2018 Date of Decision: 03.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Pankaj Gupta ……...Plaintiff Versus Sunil Kumar Sood …....Defendant Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the plaintiff : Mr. Suneel Goel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate. For the defendants: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) OMP No. 301 of 2025 Plaintiff herein filed civil suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner to the extent of half share in the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1363/1127/632/1 measuring 00-01-40, 1372/426 measuring 00-50-04, 613/2 measuring 00-24-47, 626/1 and 626/3 measuring 00-84-24; 1374/627 measuring 00-00-90, 1376/1126/628 measuring 00-11-57, 629 measuring 00-20-05, 429/1 measuring 00-00-64, total land measuring 01-48-31 Hectares, situated at village Kiyari and Rirka, Tehsil & District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, as per Jamabandi for the year 2012-13, with consequential relief and defendant be directed to execute the sale deed in favour of 2 the plaintiff to the extent of 50% share by specific performance of memorandum of understanding/agreement entered into between the parties on 21.09.2016 and in the alternative, suit for recovery of Rs. 1,08,69,892.10 alongwith pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 24% from the date of filing of the present suit till the date of realization of the entire amount alongwith the costs of this suit. 2. Though pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, defendants filed written-statement, but before issues could be framed, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. In the afore background, application at hand has been filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, seeking therein permission to compromise the suit in terms of compromise placed on record. Careful perusal of averments contained in the application, which are duly supported by affidavits signed by all the parties and identified by their counsels reveals that in accordance with terms and conditions contained in the compromise decree placed on record, which is exhibited as C-1, parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them. 3. To substantiate the factum of compromise, parties have also come present before this Court. Mr. Tushar Gupta, who happens to be legal heir of plaintiff as well as Attorney 3 holder of other legal heirs namely Neelam Gupta & Nikita Gupta, has come present in Court and is identified by Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate. He states on oath that he of his own volition and without any external pressure has entered into compromise with the defendant in accordance with the terms & conditions of compromise deed Ext.C-1. He states that he shall abide by the terms & conditions of compromise within the stipulated time, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of Court. He states that he shall have no objection in case compromise decree is passed on the basis of compromise deed Ext.C-1. While admitting contents of compromise placed on record to be correct, he also admits his signature thereupon. His statement is taken on record and exhibited as C-2. 4. Defendant Mr. Sunil Kumar Sood, who has also come present in Court and is identified by Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Advocate, states on oath that he of his own volition and without any external pressure has entered into compromise with the plaintiff in accordance with the terms & conditions of compromise deed Ext.C-1. He states that he shall abide by the terms & conditions of compromise within the stipulated time, 4 failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of Court. He states that he shall have no objection in case compromise decree is passed on the basis of compromise deed Ext.C-1. While admitting contents of compromise placed on record to be correct, he also admits his signature thereupon. His statement is taken on record and exhibited as C-3. 5. Since, it is quite apparent from the statements made by the parties to the lis as well as compromise placed on record that parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the application and permitting to settle the dispute arrived inter se them. Ordered accordingly. Application stands disposed of. COMS No.23 of 2018 6. While referring to the statements made by the parties to the lis as well as compromise placed on record, learned counsel for the parties state that on account of amicable settlement arrived inter se parties, this Court may dispose of the suit as compromised in accordance with terms & conditions contained in the compromise decree. Since, this Court, after 5 having perused statements of the parties to the lis as well as compromise placed on record, is convinced that parties have been able to resolve the dispute amicably inter se them, there appears to be no impediment in disposing of suit in terms of compromise decree Ext.C-1. Ordered accordingly. Compromise deed Ext. C-1 and statements of the parties Ext.C-2 and Ext.C-3 are made part of the record. Registry to draw compromise decree in accordance with terms & conditions contained in the compromise. It is made clear that in case parties to lis fail to abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise, they shall render themselves liable to penal consequences as well as contempt of Court. Needless to say, plaintiff, in the case at hand, shall be entitled to refund of court fee as per law. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. April 03, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge