2025:HHC:35783 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COMS No.26 of 2022 Date of Decision: 28.10.2025 __________________________________________________________ Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. & Another …….Plaintiffs Versus Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited ...….Defendant __________________________________________________________ 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 Defendant: Mr. Guru Natraj & Ms. Shradha Karol (through video conferencing) with Mr. Vaibhav Chauhan, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): OMP No.1356 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. 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, annexed with the present application, this Court finds that parties have resolved to settle their 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:35783 2 dispute amicably inter se them and as such, there appears to be no impediment in permitting parties to the lis to compromise the suit, in terms of compromise arrived inter se them 3. 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.26 of 2022 4. Instant suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the patent owned by plaintiff No.1 and other consequential reliefs under Order VII Rule 1 & 2 CPC, read with Section 108 of the Patents Act, 1970. 5. Though pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, defendant has 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. 6. Vide order dated 28.10.2025 passed in OMP No.1356 of 2025, this Court has allowed the application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, filed jointly by parties, thereby permitting the parties to compromise the suit. Since it is quite apparent from the compromise, placed on record with the OMP No.1356 of 2025, that in view of amicable settlement arrived inter se parties, parties do not intend to pursue the case at hand, rather they have decided to settle their 2025:HHC:35783 3 dispute amicably, in terms of terms & conditions contained in the settlement deed, there appears to be no impediment in disposing of the present suit as compromised, in terms of terms & conditions contained in the compromise. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, present suit is decreed as compromised, in terms of terms & conditions contained in the compromise. 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, plaintiff 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)