2025:HHC:8935 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COMS No.8 of 2017 Date of Decision: 03.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ M/s Diamond Traexim Pvt. Ltd. ……...Plaintiff Versus Sunil Kumar Sood & Anr. …....Defendants Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the plaintiff : Mr. Atul G.Sood, Advocate. For the defendants: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Pranjal Munjal, Advocate, for defendant No.1. Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Vivek Negi, Advocate, for defendant No. 1. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) OMP No. 300 of 2025 Plaintiff herein filed civil suit under Section 26 read with Order 7 Rule 1 CPC and Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, seeking declaration/cancellation of six sale deeds (bearing sale deed No. 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655 dated 01.05.2017 in respect of the land measuring 03-17-68 Hectares situated at UP Mohal Kiari/Rirka, Tehsil & District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (in short “suit land”) and for permanent injunction. 2. Though pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, defendants filed written-statement, but before issues 2 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. Ali Navab, who happens to be authorized representative of the plaintiff-Diamond Traexim Pvt. Ltd., has come present in Court and is identified by Mr. Atul G.Sood, Advocate. He states on oath that he of his own volition and without any external pressure has entered into compromise with the defendants 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 3 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. Defendants Mr. Sunil Kumar Sood and Mr. Tushar Gupta, have also come present in Court and are identified by Mr. Vivek Negi & Mr. Pranjal Munjal, Advocates, states on oath that they of their own volition and without any external pressure have entered into compromise with the plaintiff in accordance with the terms & conditions of compromise deed Ext.C-1. They state that they shall abide by the terms & conditions of compromise within the stipulated time, failing which, they shall render themselves liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of Court. They state that they 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, they also admit their signature thereupon. Their statements are taken on record and exhibited as C-3. 4 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 to permit them to settle the dispute arrived inter se them. Ordered accordingly. Application stands disposed of. COMS No.8 of 2017 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 into parties, this Court may dispose of the suit as compromised in accordance with terms & conditions contained in the compromise decree. Since, this Court, after 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 5 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 for 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