IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 759 of 2024 Shyam Singh, aged about 65 years, son of Late Ishwar Lal Singh, resident of Village- Kanshitand, P.O. Nagnagar, P.S. Govindpur, District- Dhanbad … Petitioner -Versus- 1. Habib Ansari, son of Late Chotu Ansari 2. Md. Maqsed Ansari, son of Late Chotu Ansari 3. Md. Murtez Ansari, son of Late Chotu Ansari 4. Saqeela Bano, W/o Md. Ishaq Ansari 5. Sahid Aziz, son of Md. Ishaq Ansari 6. Md. Ashif Eqbal, son of Md. Ishaq Ansari 7. Alam Parwez, son of Md. Ishaq Ansari Opp. Party No. 1 to 7 are resident of Village Simlatand, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda, District- Dhanbad 8. Ruqshana Pravin, W/o Md. Firdosh, D/o Md. Ishaq Ansari, resident of Village Gadhara, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District- Dhanbad 9. Rafiquddin, son of Late Nanhku Mian 10. Daud Jahangir 11. Irshad Ansari 12. Parwez Ansari 13. Harun Rasid Ansari Opposite Party no. 10 to 13 S/o Late Safiuddin Ansari 14. Yusuf Ansari, son of Late Maju Mian 15. Usman Ansari, son of Late Maju Mian 16. Kalimuddin Mian, son of Late Mangal Mian Opposite Party No. 9 to 16 are resident of Village Simlatand, P.O. Murradih, P.S. Barwadda, District- Dhanbad 17. Abhimanyu Singh, son of Sri Shyam Singh, resident of Village Kanshitand, P.O. Nagnagar, P.S. Barwadda, District- Dhanbad 18. Chaturanan Rai, son of Late Mahanand Rai, resident of Village Nera, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District- Dhanbad … Opposite Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : ----- 04/13.01.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed against the order dated 15.12.2023 passed in Original Suit No.235/2016 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)- VII, Dhanbad, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner under Order -1- C.M.P. No. 759 of 2024 XXIII Rule 3 CPC for disposal of the case in terms of the compromise, has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 4 have compromised the case and in view of that, such petition was filed and the suit was not disposed of on the basis of the compromise. 4. The Court has looked into the impugned order and finds that the prayer in the said petition was for disposal of the suit in terms of the compromise forming the compromise petition as part of the decree. The Court has found that the compromise was between the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 4 only and for other defendants i.e. defendant nos. 5 to 12, there was no compromise and in view of that, the said petition was dismissed. The Court is also having duty to look into the interest of other defendants also and, as such, the said petition was rightly dismissed. 5. In view of the above facts, there is no illegality in the impugned order and, as such, this petition is, hereby, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to make out the case in trial, which is still pending. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/ -2- C.M.P. No. 759 of 2024