JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja J.-This is a suit for specific performance of contract filed by the plaintiff. 2. The allegations made by the plaintiff is that original defendant No. 1 (now represented by his legal representatives) through defendant No. 2, who is the son of defendant No. 1, entered into an agreement to sell, for a total consideration of Rs.27,14,000/-. A sum of Rs.8,95,620/- was paid to defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 2 as earnest money vide a cheque. The defendant was to procure permission required by the plaintiff for purchase of the land and the sale was to be completed by 31.7.2005 by paying the balance amount. The permission was granted by the Government of Himachal Pradesh under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and since the defendants failed to execute the Sale Deed inspite of legal notice, hence suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff. 3. The defendants were contesting the suit and on subsequent date, they filed Compromise Deed, made statements in Court and accordingly, the suit for specific performance of the contract is decreed in view of the terms of the Compromise Deed Ext. PX. The Compromise Deed Ext. PX shall form the part of the decree sheet and the suit is accordingly decreed in view of the terms of the Compromise Deed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.