- (1.) Shri Anil Goyal, appellant No.3, S/o Late Shri Gulab Chand, is present in person and he has drawn the attention of the Court to the compromise application filed before the Court on 04/01/2001 signed by Smt.Kamla Devi W/o Shri Gulab Chand and respondent No.5. Behari Lal whose signatures have been identified and attested by his Counsel Shri Ravi Yadav, Advocate.
(2.) The application came up for consideration before the Court on 02/02/2001 and the Court after having noticed the application admitted the appeal and issued notices to all the respondents. While noting the fact regarding the compromise application, it was observed that an application for recording the compromise entered into between the appellant and the respondent No.5 has been filed and that it would be proper to issue notice to all the respondents to the appeal before recording the said compromise.
(3.) Service upon all the respondents has been affected and vide order dated 22/07/2008 it has been recorded while allowing the application submitted by the appellant to delete the names of respondent Nos.6 to 12 from the array of respondents. The aforesaid respondent Nos.6 to 12 are legal representatives of one of the objectors Shri Kamruddin on whose behalf objections came to be filed. As would be evident from the judgment impugned, dated January 5, 2001 passed in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.142/1972, Gulab chand & Ors. Vs. Raja Amar Singh & Ors., in Para 4 of the same, the application submitted by the legal representatives of Kamruddin before the learned Single Judge on 07/04/1993 for being impleaded as parties was allowed vide order dated 14/10/1993. In the application submitted on behalf of legal representatives of deceased Kamruddin, it had been alleged that Kamruddin had purchased part of the disputed property from one of the co-sharers. Before this Court it was stated in the application No.5351/2008 that the respondent Nos.6 to 12 who are legal representatives of Kamruddin have vacated the premises and have no interest in the litigation and therefore, their names may be ordered to be deleted. The prayer was allowed and names of respondent Nos.6 to 12 were deleted.;