2025:HHC:35774 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COMS No.10 of 2023 Date of Decision: 28.10.2025 __________________________________________________________ Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Others …….Plaintiffs Versus Hetero Drugs Limited and Others ...….Defendants __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Plaintiffs: Dr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Arpita Sawhney, Mr. Atul Jhingan, Mr. Harshit Dixit, Mr. Priyansh Sharma, Mr. Ankit Thakur, Ms. Akanksha Chauhan, Ms. Aashima Verma and Mr. Sanket Singh Sengar, Advocates. For the Defendants: Mr. Anuj Gupta, Ms. Garima Joshi and Mr. Surjeet Kumar, Advocates, for defendants No.1 & 2. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): OMP No.1198 of 2025 By way of instant application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, permission has been sought by parties to the lis to dispose of the suit in terms of the compromise arrived inter se parties, copy whereof has been placed on record in sealed cover, which is ordered to be opened. 2. Learned counsel representing the parties, under instructions from their respective clients, state that parties do not intend to pursue the suit i.e. COMS No.10 of 2023 and as such, suit may be disposed of, in terms of terms & conditions contained in the compromise. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:35774 2 3. Having perused averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by way of affidavit as well as contents of terms & conditions contained in the compromise deed, which is exhibited as C-1, this Court finds that parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them and as such, there appears to be no impediment in permitting them to compromise the suit. 4. In view of the above, present application is allowed. Compromise which was opened for the purpose of passing instant order is ordered to be sealed again. COMS No.10 of 2023 5. Instant suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants No.1 & 2 from infringing the patent No.232231 of defendant No.3 exclusively licensed to plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and other consequential reliefs under Order VII Rule 1 & 2 CPC, read with Section 108 of the Patents Act, 1970. 6. Though pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, defendants No.1 & 2 have filed written statement, but before suit at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them, as is evident from the compromise (Annexure ‘A’). Perusal of compromise, placed on record, suggests that parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. 2025:HHC:35774 3 7. Learned counsel representing the plaintiffs fairly states that amount agreed to be paid by defendants, in terms of compromise, stands received vide Draft No.632150 dated 09.10.2025 and at present, nothing is required to be done. 8. In view of aforesaid amicable settlement arrived inter se parties, there appears to be no impediment in disposing of the present suit as compromised, in terms of terms & conditions contained in the compromise. Ordered accordingly. Registry to draw the compromise decree. Needless to say, parties to the lis shall abide by the terms & conditions contained in the compromise, failing which, they would render themselves liable for penal consequences as well as Contempt of Court. Needless to say, plaintiffs shall be entitled to refund of Court fee, in accordance with rules. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 28, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)