1. C.M.P. No.907 of 2006 and C.M.P. No. 24 of 2007 in R.S.A. No. 285 of 2004 and C.M.P. No. 908 of 2006 and C.M.P. No. 27 of 2007 in R.S.A. No. 286 of 2004 Detailed arguments in these cases were heard on 19th March, 2007 when the matters were adjourned for pronouncement of orders on the aforesaid applications. By this common order, all the aforesaid four applications in the aforesaid two separate Regular Second Appeals are being disposed of together because identical issues and questions are involved for consideration and decision therein.

2. R.S.A. No. 285 of 2004 and R.S. A. No. 286 of 2004 were filed by the common appellant in both the appeals, namely, Shri Bimal Kumar against the judgments and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Solan in two Civil First Appeals pending before him against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned the then Senior Sub-Judge, Solan in two Civil Suits pending before him. Both the suits were filed by the opposite parties against the appellant- Bimal Kumar. The trial Court decreed both the suits in favour of the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved, as noticed above, the appellant- Bimal Kumar filed the Civil First Appeals before the learned first Appellate Court, namely, District Judge, Solan, who, as noticed above, dismissed the said appeals affirming the decree passed by the learned trial Court. It is against the aforesaid concurrent findings of the two courts below that the aforementioned two Regular Second Appeals were filed by Bimal Kumar appellant in this Court.

3. Both the appeals were admitted by this Court vide its order dated 14th July, 2004. Since then these have been pending consideration in this Court.

4. Cross-Objections have also been filed by the respondents in both the appeals.

5. On 17th November, 2006, C.M.P. No. 907 of 2006 was filed in R.S.A. No. 285 of 2004 in terms of Order 23, Rule 3 read with Section 151, CPC by the appellant and the respondents jointly. This application,which bears the date of 21st August, 2006 (but actually was filed in the Court on 17th November, 2006) is supported by the separate affidavits of appellant-Bimal Kumar and one Akhey Chand-respondent. The aforesaid two affidavits of the aforesaid two deponents were also affirmed on 21st August, 2006. Through the medium of this application, the parties in the appeal averred and submitted that they have compromised the matter and that based on the terms of the compromise, the appellant was withdrawing all his claims against the respondents. The terms of the compromise are included in clauses (a) to (d) of Para 1 of the application, which inter alia, stipulate that the appellant has agreed not to claim any right, title or interest of any nature in the properties forming the subject-matter of the dispute in the aforesaid appeal. Various other averments are also made in the application and ultimately it was prayed in the application that in the interest of justice, the compromise between the parties may be recorded and decree in terms of the compromise be passed and the appeal be disposed of.

6. Similar, identical application was filed in R.S.A. No. 286 of 2004 being C.M.P. No. 908 of 2006. This application was also filed on 17th November, 2006 but unlike the application in R.S.A. No. 285 of 2004, the application in R.S.A. No. 286 of 2004 bears the date of 17th November, 2006 and it is on this date also that the two affidavits filed by Bimal Kumar and Akhey Chand in support of the application, were sworn and affirmed by the aforesaid two deponents. C.M.P. No. 908 of 2006 being identical in terms contained almost similar averments as are contained in C.M.P. No. 907 of 2006 except substantially a different averment relating to Civil Suit No. 5 of 2002 regarding the disputed sale of a property at Parwanu and proceedings pending under Order 39, Rule 2-A, CPC in the Court of the then Senior Sub-Judge, Solan arising out of the aforesaid Civil Suit No. 5 of 2002. These additional averments are contained in cl