List has been revised. Learned Counsel for the parties are not present. 2. The afore-mentioned applica tion has been filed on behalf of Shitla Prasad and Kashi Nath, plaintiffs- appel lants Nos. 1 and 2, respectively in the Second Appeal. 3. It is, inter alia, prayed in the afore-mentioned application that the Second Appeal be dismissed, as the matter has been compromised amicab ly between the parties out-side the Court. 4. The afore-mentioned applica tion is supported by a joint affidavit, sworn on 18-5-1992 by the said Shitla Prasad (plaintiff-appellant No. 1) and the said Kashi Nath (plaintiff- appellant MO. 2 ). " It is, inter alia, stated in the said the parties In the Second Appeal have compromised the dispute out- side the Court; and that the plain tiffs-appellants do not want to peruse the Second Appeal any further; and that the plaintiffs-appellants want that the Second Appeal be dismissed. 6. Copy of the afore-mentioned ap plication was served on I the learned Counsel for the respondents on 19-5-1992,: whereupon the learned Counsel for the respondents made endorse ment of no- objection on the afore-men tioned application. 7. In view of the averments made in the afore-mentioned application and its accompanying affidavit, I am of the opinion that the prayer made in the afore-mentioned application deserves to be granted. 8. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 9. The interim order dated 12-10-1984, as confirmed by the order dated 2-2-1988, stands vacated. 10. It is made clear that no liberty is being given for filing fresh Second Appeal on the same cause of action Appeal dismissed. .