2025:HHC:29390 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 210 of 2017 Date of decision: 29 .8 .202 5 Tilak Raj & Another. ….Appellants. Versus Ajay Kumar & others. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr.Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate, alongwith Mr.Aman Hansretta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms.Vishali Lakhanpal, Advocate, vice Mr.Parv Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Respondents No. 5 to 13 already ex parte vide order dated 26.3.2019 Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral) This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred against judgment and decree dated 23.2.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2016, whereby judgment and decree dated 29.2.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 50 of 2000, RBT No. 759 of 2003, has been affirmed and 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2025:HHC:29390 RSA NO. 210 of 2017 suit of the respondents for possession has been decreed by passing a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to Khasra Nos. 260, 264, 265 and 267, situated in Tika Badeti Mouza Jalari, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. and appellants/defendants have also been directed by passing mandatory injunction to remove the structure existing over Khasra No. 263 by handing over vacant possession of the land to the plaintiffs, by holding that the structure has been proved to be raised despite objections and institution of the suit. 2. This Regular Second Appeal is being contested by respondents No. 1 to 4. Despite service respondents No. 5 to 13 have not opted to contest the appeal. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that matter has been amicably settled between the contesting parties and in terms of compromise share of contesting respondents has been purchased by appellant No. 2 and in turn appellant No. 2 has transferred land three times to the suit land in favour of wife of respondent No. 2 in May, 2025. Copies of relevant sale deeds dated 25.11.2022 and 27.5.2025 and exchange deed dated 27.5.2025 have been placed on record alongwith application CMP No. 19739 of 2025. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4 has not disputed the compromise, rather has communicated consent of 2 2025:HHC:29390 RSA NO. 210 of 2017 respondents No. 1 to 4 to decide present appeal in terms of aforesaid compromise. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the parties that after aforesaid sales and transfer of land, nothing survives to be adjudicated and respondents No 1 to 4 have agreed for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree. 6. In view of above, impugned judgment and decree dated 23.2.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, in Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2016 and consequently judgment and decree dated 29.2.2012 passed in Civil Suit No. 50 of 2000, which has been merged in judgment and decree dated 23.2.2017, are set aside in terms of compromise narrated in application CMP No. 19739 of 2025. 7. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Terms of compromise contained in CMP No. 19739 of 2025 shall form part of decree. The appeal alongwith pending application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. (Vivek Singh Thakur), 29th August, 2025 Judge. (Keshav) 3