JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Plaintiff, who is a Society registered under Societies Registration Act, 2006, entered into the agreement to sell with defendants No.1 and 2, for purchase of land and building comprised in Khata No.93, Khatauni Nos.155, 156 and 157, plots 3, measuring 002177 HM to the extent of 8/27/2177 shares i.e. 00877 HM and Khata No.92, Khatauni Nos.151, 152, 153 and 154, Khasra Nos. 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153 and 154, plots 8, measuring 05850 HM, 1673/5830 shares i.e. 01673 HIM, total land 02500 HM and building constructed thereon situated in Mohal Naglahar, Mauza Bagh Raja, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., as per jamabandi for the year, 20112012. 2. Vide agreement to sell dated 23.3.2016, registered with the Executive Magistrate, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. on 25.4.2016, defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit property for total consideration of Rs. 1, 68,00,000/ in favour of the plaintiff. Allegedly, a sum of Rs. 50, 000/was paid to defendant No.1 by the plaintiff at the time of execution of agreement dated 20.1.2016. Subsequently on 12.2.2016, aforesaid agreement was amended and further payment of Rs. 10,00,000/ was made by the plaintiff to defendant No.1. Lastly another fresh revised agreement was executed on 23.3.2016 as "Amended Agreement for sale of land", wherein payment already made by the plaintiff to defendant No.1 and received by defendant No.1 was duly acknowledged on the said date of amended agreement, dated 23.3.2016. 3. Prior to filing of the suit at hand, plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 11.50 lac to defendants No.1 and 2 towards sale consideration, whereas as per agreed terms, remaining amount was to be paid by the plaintiff to defendant No.7Bank towards the loan raised by defendant No.1 for construction of the building standing on the suit land. Since, defendant No.1 failed to take steps in terms of the agreement for procuring "Essentiality Certificate" as well as permission under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, plaintiff was compelled to approach this Court by way of instant suit for specific performance of the Contract/Agreement. 4. Since, defendant No.1 failed to take steps in terms of the agreement for procuring "Essentiality Certificate" as well as permission under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, plaintiff was compelled to approach this Court by way of instant suit for specific performance of the Contract/Agreement. 4. During the pendency of the suit, it transpired that defendant No.7Bank had already initiated proceedings under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act against defendant No.1 and accordingly, this Court having taken note of the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, modified its earlier order dated 23.5.2017,whereby it had directed parties to maintain status quo, to the extent that applicant/defendant No.7Bank shall be at liberty to proceed with the action, if any, initiated under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act during the pendency of the present suit, however, while passing aforesaid order, it was specifically ordered by this Court that applicant/ defendant No.7Bank before taking final action against the defaulters, shall inform this Court. 5. Since, pursuant to the agreement to sell executed inter se parties, plaintiff was put into possession and school was being run in the premises, this Court vide order dated 28th May, 2018, directed the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lac with defendant No.7bank to show its bonafides. Subsequently, this Court vide separate order further directed the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs. 25 Lac with defendant No.7Bank towards loan account of defendant No.1 and as such, during the pendency of the instant suit plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 35 lac with the defendant No.7Bank towards the loan raised by defendant No.1. However, fact remains that defendant No.7Bank even despite having received a sum of Rs. 35 lac from the plaintiff proceeded against defendant No.1 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, and in that process procured possession of the property, which was actually being utilized by the plaintiff for running the school. However, this Court having taken note of the fact that during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff had deposited a sum of Rs. 35 lac on the askance of this Court, directed defendant No.7Bank to restore the possession back to the plaintiff so that no prejudice is caused to the students studying in the school. 6. However, this Court having taken note of the fact that during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff had deposited a sum of Rs. 35 lac on the askance of this Court, directed defendant No.7Bank to restore the possession back to the plaintiff so that no prejudice is caused to the students studying in the school. 6. On 29.8.2018, this Court after having interacted with the parties as well as counsel representing them, found that there is possibility of amicable settlement inter se parties, if they are persuaded to do so and accordingly summoned both the parties to the Court. 7. On 11.9.2018, learned counsel representing the parties informed this Court that parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them and as such, they may be given some time to move/ file joint application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for placing on record the compromise. 8. Today, during the proceedings of the case, a joint application on behalf of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 has been presented before this Court, which is taken on record, praying therein for disposal of the civil suit in term of the amicable settlement arrived inter se parties. Registry is directed to register the aforesaid application. 9. Careful perusal of the application, referred hereinabove, clearly suggests that parties have now resolved to settle their dispute amicably in terms of the terms and conditions contained in the compromise/application and as such, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer having been made by the learned counsel for the parties by way of instant application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. This Court solely with a view to ascertain the correctness and genuineness of the averments contained in the application, referred hereinabove,also recorded the statements of the parties in the Court. Plaintiff, who happened to be the Chairman of the plaintiff Society as well as Ms. Kavita, who is tenant of the premises in question stated on oath before this Court that they have entered into the compromise with defendant No.1 of their own volition and without their being any external pressure,whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute with defendants No.1 and 2 amicably in terms of the terms and conditions contained in the application. Kavita, who is tenant of the premises in question stated on oath before this Court that they have entered into the compromise with defendant No.1 of their own volition and without their being any external pressure,whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute with defendants No.1 and 2 amicably in terms of the terms and conditions contained in the application. Above named persons unequivocally stated before this Court on oath that they shall be handing over the vacant possession of the premises in question to defendants No.1 and 2 on or before 31st March, 2019. They further stated that they shall withdraw Writ Petition bearing No.739 of 2017 pending before this Court for adjudication. Similarly, defendant No.2, Suraj Kant also stated on oath before this Court that application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, bears his signatures and he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into the compromise with the plaintiff and Smt. Kavita, whereby he has agreed that he would not be interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the premises till 31st March, 2019. Defendant No.1 also acknowledged before this Court that as of today a sum of Rs. 46.50 lac in total stands received by him ( Rs. 35 lac paid to the bank and Rs. 11:50 lac received by him towards sale consideration). Defendant No.2 also stated that he after having adjusted sum of Rs. 7.50 lac towards rent of the premises in question, shall refund sum of Rs. 39 lac in three equal installments to the plaintiff as per the agreement/compromise, for which, post dated cheques have already been issued by him in favour of the plaintiff. 11. Statements having been made by the parties, referred hereinabove, are taken on record and they have been made aware of the consequences of not honouring/complying with the terms and conditions contained in the application/compromise arrived inter se them. 12. Consequently, in view of the above, present suit is disposed of being compromised in terms of the terms and conditions contained in the application/compromise. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly on the basis of the terms and conditions contained in the joint application having been filed by the parties under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly on the basis of the terms and conditions contained in the joint application having been filed by the parties under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is clarified that in case any of the party fails to comply with the terms and conditions, contained in the application/compromise, he/she shall render himself/herself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of the Court. 13. Needless to say, plaintiff shall be entitled to refund of Court fee, in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.