IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 58 of 2026 Date of decision:15.07.2026 Sukhwinder Kaur @ Amrit Kaur ...Appellant Versus Ravinder Singh ...Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tamanna Sharma, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (oral) : It is heartening to note that, with the intervention of the learned senior counsel for the parties, the daughter and father have settled the matter for all times to come. 2. The facts as emerge in the present case are that Shri Ranvinder Singh, the present respondent, filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, HP, on 21.11.2016. The learned trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 12.07.2021, partly decreed the suit as filed by the plaintiff by declaring the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- respondent-plaintiff to be the owner in possession of the suit land, comprised in Khata Khatoni No. 208/209, bearing Khasra No.330/291/130, measuring 0 bigha 6.66 biswas, i.e., a 1/3rd share out of the total land measuring 1 bigha, situated in the area of village Chuhuwal, Pargana and Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, on the basis of the transaction of exchange, which was registered vide deed No.1113 dated 23.06.2016. 3. Feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and decree as passed by the learned trial Court, the daughter-appellant preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Nalagarh, on 10.09.2021. The learned first appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 21.06.2026, affirmed the findings as returned by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal as filed by the appellant. 4. Still feeling dissatisfied, the daughter/appellant has filed the instant regular second appeal against the impugned judgment. 5. During the pendency of the appeal, the matter was sent to the mediation of Mr. S.C. Sharma, learned senior counsel, and with his sincere efforts, the parties, i.e., the daughter and the father, have settled the matter amongst them. -3- 6. The parties have filed a joint application (CMP No.17360 of 2026) under the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC, for effecting a compromise inter se the parties. The application has been duly supported by the affidavits of both parties. The joint application, along with the affidavits, is taken on record as Ext. C1. 7. The terms and conditions have been incorporated in the joint application, and both parties have agreed that they shall remain bound by the same, and none of the parties shall obviate, deviate, or defy any of the terms and conditions, failing which he or she shall be liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. 8. In view of the compromise as effected between the parties, the decree of injunction as passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. vide judgment and decree dated 12.07.2021, which stood affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nalagarh, vide judgment and decree dated 21.01.2026, are quashed and set aside. 9. Since, the matter stands compromised between the parties, the Tehsildar, Nalagarh, is directed that in case the parties approach him to incorporate the settlement in the records of rights and attestation of mutation, needful shall be done -4- expeditiously strictly in terms of compromise as entered between the partes. 10. Consequently, in view of aforesaid observations, the present appeal is disposed of, as having been compromised inter se the parties on the basis of the compromise It is ordered that Ext. C1 shall form part of decree. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Romesh Verma) Judge July 15, 2026 (vt)