[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hariram vs Ramnarayan on 13 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36705
1 SA-519-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE LOK ADALAT
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
&
SHRI NITIN SINGH BHATI
ON THE 13 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 519 of 2022
HARIRAM S/O SUKHRAM NAI
Versus
RAMNARAYAN S/O RAGUNATH SOLANKI AND ANOTHER
Appearance:
Appellant - plaintiff by Shri Sameer Verma - Advocate.
Respondent No.1 - defendant Shri Ramnarayan S/o Raghunathji Solanki (Advocate)
is present in person.
Respondent No.2 - State of Madhya Pradesh by Shri Romit Verma - Government
Advocate appearing on behalf of the Advocate General.
ORDER
The present matter has been placed before this Lok Adalat under Section 20
of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
This second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has
been filed by appellant - plaintiff (Hariram S/o Sukhram Nai) being aggrieved by
judgment and decree dated 01.02.2022 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.14 of
2018, whereby learned First Additional District Judge, Khategaon, District Dewas
(MP) has affirmed judgment and decree dated 12.01.2018 passed in Civil Original
Suit No.20-A of 2012 by learned First Civil Judge, Class-I, Khategaon, District
Dewas (MP).
2. The parties have entered into a compromise by filing IA No.12606 of
2025 dated 13.12.2025. This compromise application has been filed under the
signatures of appellant (Hariram S/o Sukhram Nai) and respondent No.1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:36705
2 SA-519-2022
(Ramnarayan S/o Shri Jagannath Ji Mali, who himself is an advocate). The
appellant and respondent No.1, both, are present in person. The appellant is also
represented through his counsel Shri Sameer Verma, Advocate. The appellant and
respondent No.1 have also been duly identified by Shri Sameer Verma -
Advocate. The parties state that they have voluntarily, without any duress entered
into the compromise and have no reservation in disposing off this second appeal
on the terms of the compromise. As per the compromise, the appellant seeks leave
of this Court to withdraw this second appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Second Appeal No.277 of
2013 between the same parties has been disposed off today itself in terms of the
compromise arrived at between them, and therefore, the appellant does not want
to press this second appeal. Hence, IA No.12606 of 2025 has been filed.
4. Prayer is allowed.
5. Accordingly, Second Appeal No.519 of 2022 is dismissed as
withdrawn. IA No.12606 of 2025 also stands allowed and disposed off.
6. Ad valorem Court-fee paid by the appellant be refunded to him by
issuing a certificate as early as possible, preferably within a period of thirty days
from today.
(JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) (NITIN SINGH BHATI)
MEMBER MEMBER
rcp
