JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —Cmp(M) No.102/2018 By medium of this application, the appellants/applicants have sought for condonation of delay in filing the main appeal. Even though the application is barred by 365 days, however I am inclined to allow this application in view of the sufficient cause having been spelt out in the application more particularly in contents of paras 3 and 4 thereof. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the aforesaid delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. The appeal be registered. FAO No.258/2018 & CMP No.4614/2018 Looking to the nature of the order I propose to pass, it is not necessary to refer in detail the facts of the case. 2. Suffice it to say that the respondent filed a petition (Case No.6/3 of 2015) for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, ''the Act'') which was allowed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) , Court No.2, Shimla, vide order dated 12.1.2017 and the said order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present proceedings. 3. Notably, the defence taken by the petitioner all throughout the proceedings was that no legal and valid marriage had taken place between the parties, however, this question was not even determined by the learned court below vide impugned order. 4. During the pendency of these proceedings, the parties have compromised the matter whereby the respondent has admitted that no legal and valid marriage ever took place between the parties either under Hindu religion or custom of the area. The parties did not even live together as husband and wife for a moment. In furtherance of the compromise, the respondent has agreed to withdraw his claim of alleged marriage with appellant No.1. It has further been mutually agreed that since the respondent has given up his claim being married to appellant No.1 and even otherwise, appellant No.1 does not admit that there was any legal and valid marriage that had taken place between them, the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed before the learned court below and the impugned order dated 12.1.2017 passed on it be deemed to have been withdrawn. The respondent has specifically given up his claim for restitution of conjugal rights and further acknowledged that in any manner there is no relationship of husband and wife between the parties. 5. The respondent has specifically given up his claim for restitution of conjugal rights and further acknowledged that in any manner there is no relationship of husband and wife between the parties. 5. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the present petition is allowed on the following terms: That since there was no relationship of husband and wife between the parties, therefore, petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights was totally misconceived and is ordered to be dismissed as such. Consequently, the impugned order dated 12.1.2017 has lost its efficacy and is no longer enforceable. In this view of the matter, findings recorded by the learned court below in para 18 of the impugned order regarding marriage of the parties are inconsequential and specifically ordered to be set aside. The parties shall be bound what is stated in CMP No.4614/2018 and the same shall be read as part and parcel of the decree. In case of any party defaulting or contravening the terms of the compromise, as aforesaid, aggrieved party shall be at liberty to seek execution of this order. 6. Pending application(s) , if any, also stands disposed of. The parties are left to bear their own costs.