Diksha Uppal and Anr v. Ravideep Singh and Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Suit No.49 of 2025 Decided on: 31.08.2026 __________________________________________________ Diksha Uppal & another ....Plaintiffs Versus Ravideep Singh and others.

.…Defendants Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Plaintiffs : Mr.Shakti Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Defendants : Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Advocate, for defendants No.1 to 3. Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushik, Advocate vice Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for defendants No.4 & 5. ___________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral): Civil Suit No.49 of 2025 & OMP No.924 of 2026 The present suit under Order VII rule 1 & 2 of the CPC, has been filed for recovery of Rs.1,21,72,360/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the decretal amount till the date of actual realization of the entire claim amount Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. and for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 3 from further alienating the suit land.

¶2During pendency of the present suit, the plaintiffs filed an application, i.e. OMP No.924 of 2026, under Order 23 Rule 3, read with Section 151 of CPC for placing on record the compromise deed dated 11.08.2026 Ext. PW-1/B (Annexure A-1) executed between the parties.

¶3On 27.08.2026, statements of parties were recorded. Ritesh Khullar, in his statement, stated that he is the General Power of Attorney holder of plaintiff No.1, Diksha Uppal and the plaintiffs have entered into a compromise with the defendants vide Compromise Deed Ext. PW-1/B; and the suit may be decreed as per aforesaid Compromise Deed. Plaintiff No.2, Sat Dev Vij, stated that he has filed the present suit along with Ms. Diksha, plaintiff No.1 and the aforesaid suit has been compromised between the parties as per Compromise Deed Ext. PW-1/B.

¶4The statement of defendant No.1, Ravi Deep Singh, has also been recorded on 27.08.2026, wherein he stated that he is the General Power of Attorney holder of defendants No.2 & 3, namely Ravinder Kaur and Gagandeep Kaur. He further stated that the present suit has been compromised as per Compromise Deed Ext. PW-1/B and the same may be decreed as per said compromise.

¶5Learned counsel for defendants No.4 & 5, has also stated at bar that the aforesaid defendants have no objection, if the present suit is decreed as per aforesaid Compromise Deed Ext. PW-1/B

¶6Therefore, in view of the Compromise-Deed, dated

11.08.2026 Ext. PW-1/B as well as the statements of the parties, the present application is allowed and the suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed in terms of the Comppromise-Deed, dated

11.08.2026, Ext. PW-1/B. The Compromise Deed as well as the statements of the parties shall form part of the record. The parties shall abide by the terms and conditions of the aforesaid Compromise Deed, Ext. PW-1/B.

¶7In view of the above terms, the present suit is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Court fee be refunded to the plaintiffs as admissible under the rules. ( Sushil Kukreja )

Judge August 31, 2026

(reena)