( 2025:HHC:39243 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 65 of 2016. Decided on : 20 th November, 2025. Suram Dass & Ors. ...Appellants. Versus Dharam Dass (since deceased) through his Lrs Smt. Chander Mani & ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants: Mr. Nishan Khidtta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Pushpender Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, for respondents No.1(a) to 1(g). Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). CMP No. 27595 OF 2025 This application has been )led by the appellants for deletion of names of proforma respondents No. 3 to 8, 10 to 13, 16 and 17 on the ground that the appellants have already entered into an agreement with respondents No.1(a) to 1(g) and proforma respondent No.2 and the said fact has already been placed before this Court vide application bearing CMP No. 3358 of 2025. It is 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:39243 ) averred that proforma respondents No. 3 to 8, 10 to 13, 16 and 17 had neither appeared before the trial Court nor before the First Appellate Court. In the plaint, it was clearly stated by the plaintifs that he had no claim against the aforesaid proforma respondents. Appellants are also stated to have no surviving interest against the proforma respondents No. 3 to 8, 10 to 13, 16 and 17 and thus the prayer for deletion of names of said proforma respondents has been made. 2. Record reveals that all the aforesaid proforma respondents have remained unrepresented in the instant appeal despite service. 3. The application is not opposed by the contesting respondents. Accordingly, the same is allowed and the names of proforma respondents No. 3 to 8, 10 to 13, 16 and 17 are ordered to be deleted from the array of respondents. Application stands disposed of. CMP No. 3358 of 2025. 4. By way of this application, the contesting parties have placed on record deed of compromise executed inter se them to 3 ( 2025:HHC:39243 ) amicably settle the subject matter of the present dispute. A prayer has been made to decide the instant appeal in terms of the compromise. 5. Application has been )led by appellant No.2 Amar Nath for himself as also for other appellants. A copy of special power of attorney executed by appellants No.1 and 3 in favour of appellant No.2 has been )led alongwith the application. Similarly, respondents No.1 (b) and 1(c) have signed the application on behalf of all contesting respondents and for themselves. A copy of special power of attorney executed by the other contesting respondents has also been placed on record. 6. The other proforma respondents, who earlier were shown in the array of respondents, have been deleted on the basis of the prayer made in the application bearing CMP No. 27595 of 2025. 7. Learned counsel for both the sides have con)rmed the factum of compromise having been arrived at between the parties. The copy of compromise is acknowledged by both the sides as Ex. C-1 on record. 4 ( 2025:HHC:39243 ) 8. I do not see any impediment for grant of prayer made by the contesting parties and apparently there is nothing to suspect their bona)de. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The instant appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise Ex. C-1 which shall form part of the decree. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. 9. Pending applications also stand disposed of. 10. Records be sent back. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 20th November, 2025. (jai)