Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mast Ram vs Dhani Ram And Others on 6 April, 2021
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
RSA No. 498 of 2006.
Decided on : 6th April, 2021.
.
Mast Ram ...Appellant.
Versus
Dhani Ram and others . ....Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellants: Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1, 3 to 6: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate
with Ms. Rinki Kashmiri, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 2(a) to 2(e): Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate.
Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (Oral).
CMP(M) No. 251 of 2021.
Since, the demise of one Sudama Ram, arrayed as
co-respondent No.2, in the array of respondents, as, disclosed
by Annexure A-1, has, occurred during the pendency of the
extant appeal before this Court, inasmuch, as, on 20.12.2018.
Moreover, since the requisite delay, as has occurred, in the
institution of the instant application, is sufficiently explained,
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
...2...
.
thereupon, the apposite delay is condoned . Abatement, if any,
is also set aside. Since, for the continuation of the instant
appeal, the substitution of co-respondent No.2, one Sudama
Ram, by his legal representatives is imperative, thereupon, his
legal representatives as enumerated in paragraph No.1 of the
instant application, are ordered to be substituted in his place.
The extant application stands disposed of.
r The Registry is
directed to carry out necessary corrections in the relevant
records. No notice need be issued to the newly added co-
respondents No.2(a) to 2(e), as, they are duly represented by Mr.
Janesh Gupta, Advocate.
CMP No. 4225 of 2021 & RSA No. 498 of 2006.
During the pendency of the extant appeal, before
this Court, a conjoint application has been filed under the
provisions of Order 23, Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC,
application whereof, is, duly accompanied by an affidavit sworn
by the plaintiff/appellant. Moreover, the affidavit of one Ram
Swarup, arrayed as co-respondent No. 6, the duly constituted
...3...
.
attorney, by the legal heirs of deceased Sudama Ram, is also
appended alongwith the afore application. Since, Ram Swarup,
co-respondent No.6, is also a duly constituted attorney of co-
respondents No.1 and 3 to 5, hence, the endeavour as made
through the afore application, can be validly recoursed.
Consequently, today, in terms of the settlement arrived at
interse the contesting litigants Mr. Neeraj Gupta, the learned
Senior Counsel, and, Mr. Janesh Gupta, the learned counsel,
handed over a cheque bearing No. 007173, of, 21.03.2021,
containing an amount of Rs.20,000/-, drawn at Jogindra Central
Co-operative Bank Ltd, Bhararighat, to the learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant. Since, the afore handing
over of the afore cheque, is, towards satisfaction of the terms of
the compromise arrived at inter se the contesting litigation,
therefore, in terms of the settlement arrived at inter se the
contesting parties, and, as contained in the application under
Order 22, Rule 3 of the CPC, the extant appeal is disposed of as
becoming comprised. Photo copy of the cheque be retained on
...4...
.
the records of the extant case. The demarcation report,
Ex.PW2/A, and, the extant application bearing No.4225 of 2021
shall form part and parcel of the compromise decree. Decree
sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also
stand disposed of.
r to (Sureshwar Thakur)
Judge
6th April, 2021.
(jai)
