Shailendra Singh, J. – Re. I.A. No. 04 of 2025 Heard Mr. Dineshwar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rahul Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Mr. Siddharth Harsh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4.

2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) with a prayer to pass a compromise decree in between both the parties.

3. Learned counsels appearing for both the parties are present. They jointly submit that the appellant namely, Manoj Kumar Agrawal, respondent nos. 2 and 3 namely, Uma Shanker Prasad Agrawal @ Uma Shanker Agrawal and Saroj Kumar Agrawal, are full brothers. The respondent no. 4 namely, Uma Rani Agrawal is the wife of Uma Shanker Prasad Agrawal @ Uma Shanker Agrawal (respondent no.2). The original respondent no. 1 namely, Most. Shanti Kuer was the mother of the appellant, respondent no.2 and respondent no. 3. The appellant’s wife, namely, Gayatri Devi @ Gayatri Agrawal @ Gayatree Agrawal has been substituted in place of the original respondent no.1 namely, Most. Shanti Kuer after her death as one of the legal heirs of deceased respondent no.1. They further submit that the original respondent no. 1, Most. Shanti Kuer has died on 28.09.2024 leaving behind her three sons, the appellant, respondent no.2 and respondent no. 3 and at the time of her death, she expressed her wish of there being cordial relation among her all three sons and wished to end the present litigation amicably. Thereafter, all the parties of the present appeal, as per the last wish of the original respondent no. 1, have amicably settled the partition dispute outside the court and have collectively reached at compromise and the original copy of compromise deed is attached as Annexure-1 to the present interlocutory application. The Title Suit No. 435/2001 in which the impugned judgment and decree were passed, was filed for partition of the suit property as there was some dispute with regard to the shares which were being claimed by all the shareholders and now the dispute has been resolved and three different Schedules i.e. Schedule-A, Schedule-B and Schedule-C have been prepared. The properties mentioned in Schedule-A of the compromise deed have been allotted to the respondent no.2, Uma Shanker Prasad Agrawal @ Uma Shanker Agrawal, the properties mentioned in Schedule-B of the Compromise Deed have been allotted to the appellant, Manoj Kumar Agrawal and Gayatri Devi @ Gayatri Agrawal @ Gayatree Agrawal (substituted respondent no.1) and the said properties have been jointly allotted to both of them. The properties mentioned in the Schedule-C of the Compromise Deed have been allotted to the respondent no.3, Saroj Kumar Agrawal @ Saroj Kumar. The respondent no. 4, Uma Rani Agrawal, has not been allotted any share. The said Uma Rani Agrawal (respondent no.4) and Gayatri Devi @ Gayatri Agrawal @ Gayatree Agrawal (substituted respondent no.1) will not make any separate claim and both are fully satisfied with the said partition as well as with the terms and conditions of the compromise relating to the partition. The learned counsels representing all the parties jointly submit that all the Schedules concerned to the allotment of the shares, have been signed by all the parties and the appellant, Manoj Kumar Agrawal, Gayatri Devi @ Gayatri Agrawal @ Gayatree Agrawal (substituted respondent no.1), Uma Shanker Prasad Agrawal @ Uma Shanker Agrawal ( respondent no.2), Saroj Kumar Agrawal @ Saroj Kumar (respondent no.3) and Uma Rani Agrawal (respondent no.4) have sworn in their respective affidavit of which original copies have been filed with this interlocutory application and in these affidavits, all of them have fully supported the terms and conditions of the said compromise and also accepted as to having signed the compromise deed in full knowledge of the terms and conditions of the compromise. It is lastly submitted that to