IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.216 and 217 of 2015 Date of decision: 28.09.2026 1.RSA No.216 of 2015 Ramesh Kumar Sood ...Appellant. Versus Satya Devi (deceased) through her LR ...Respondent. 2.RSA No.217 of 2015 Ramesh Kumar Sood ...Appellant. Versus Satya Devi (deceased) through her LR ...Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Varun Chauhan, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): RSA No.217 of 2015 It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the matter stands compromised inter se the parties. It has been submitted that the appellant has handed over possession to the Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- respondent, and that fact has been duly acknowledged by learned counsel for the respondent. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the amount of use and occupation charges which stands deposited in the Registry of this Court and before the courts below, as per the terms and conditions, has to be disbursed to the present appellant. The said fact is not denied or disputed by learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Therefore, in view of the settlement which has taken place inter se the parties, the present appeal is disposed of with a direction to the Registry to release or refund the entire amount towards use and occupation charges lying deposited in the Registry of this Court and the learned court below in favour of the appellant-applicant by remitting the same into his savings bank account, the details of which shall be furnished by learned counsel for the appellant within one week. 3. Further, it has been contended that since, during the pendency of the appeal, the parties have negotiated and settled the matter finally, the appropriate court fee permissible under the rules shall be refunded to the appellant. Subject to the provisions of the rules framed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and admissibility under the rules, the court fee is ordered to be refunded in favour of the appellant. -3- 4. Consequently, the appeal stands disposed of as having been compromised. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. RSA No.216 of 2015 5. In view of the order passed in RSA No. 217 of 2015, this appeal also stands disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. (Romesh Verma) Judge 28th September, 2026. (vt)