1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Suit No. 08 of 2026 Date of Decision : 17.04.2026 Attar Singh ...Plaintiff Versus Sangat Singh ...Defendants. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma. Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the plaintiff : Mr.Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate, For the defendants : Mr. K.S. Kanwar, Advocate, for defendants No.3 & 4. Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for defendant No.5. Romesh Verma, Judge(oral) The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 25.11.2024, along with a further prayer for the grant of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction and for declaring the sale deed executed in favour of defendants No. 4, 5, and 6 as null and void. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Notices were issued by this Court on 09.02.2026. Pursuant to the issuance of notices, the defendants were duly served. 3. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of defendants No. 3 and 4. Defendant No. 3, who is General Power of Attorney holder for defendants No. 1 and 2 and defendant No.4 are also present in person. Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan,Advocate has appeared on behalf of Hardev Singh (defendant No.5), who is General Power of Attorney holder for defendants No. 6 and 7. 4. It is heartening to note that during the pendency of the present suit, the parties have amicably settled the matter and the deed of compromise has been placed on record as Ext. C-1. The statements of Attar Singh ( plaintiff), Baldev Singh (defendnt No.3), Sanjeev Kumar (defendnt No.4) and Hardev Singh Sahota (defendant No.5) have been recorded separately which are duly signed by them, wherein they have undertaken to remain bound by each and every term and condition incorporated therein and in case anyone of the parties deviates or obviates from any of the terms and conditions, the erring party shall be liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. 3 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the requisite Court fee, as permissible under the law, may be refunded to the plaintiff. 6. The requisite court fee, as permissible under law, is ordered to be refunded to the plaintiff, as per the prevailing Rules. 7. Therefore, in view of the compromise inter se the parties, the present suit stands disposed off as having been compromised. The compromise deed Ext. C-1 shall form part of the decree.Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off. (Romesh Verma), Judge 17.04.2026 (veena)