JUDGMENT: ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J. Second Appeal No.534 of 2007 is filed by appellants challenging the judgment and decree, dated 28.02.2007, in A.S.No.18 of 1997 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Medak, at Sangareddy, wherein the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Munsif, at Sangareddy, in O.S.No.104 of 1989, dated 27.12.1996, was dismissed. 2. Second Appeal No.955 of 2007 is filed by appellants challenging the judgment and decree, dated 28.02.2007, in A.S.No.17 of 1997 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Medak, at Sangareddy, confirming the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Munsif, at Sangareddy, in O.S.No.171 of 1988, dated 27.12.1996. 3. Heard learned counsel for appellants in S.A.Nos.534 and 955 of 2007 and learned counsel for respondents in S.A.Nos.534 and 955 of 2007. 4. As the issue involved in both the second appeals is one same, both the matters are heard together. 5. For convenience, facts in S.A.No.534 of 2007 are being referred. 6. Appellants herein are respondents in A.S.No.18 of 1997 and plaintiffs in O.S.No.104 of 1989. Respondents herein are legal representatives of appellant in A.S.No.18 of 1997 and defendant No.3 in O.S.No.104 of 1989. 7. O.S.No.104 of 1989 was filed by plaintiffs (appellants herein) before the Additional District Munsif, at Sangareddy, seeking specific performance of the contract against defendant No.3 (respondent No.1 herein). Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 27.12.1996 allowed the suit. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.12.1996 in O.S.No.104 of 1989, respondent No.1 herein filed A.S.No.18 of 1997 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Medak, at Sangareddy. First Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2007, allowed A.S.No.18 of 1997 by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.12.1996 in O.S.No.104 of 1989. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal is filed by plaintiffs/appellants herein. 9. I.A.No.4 of 2025 is filed seeking permission to allow the second appeal in terms of compromise deed dated 28.02.2025 entered into between the parties. 10. On 17.07.2025, this Court directed the parties to appear before the High Court Legal Services Committee for identification of the parties, along with their counsels, in terms of the compromise deed dated 28.02.2025 annexed with I.A.No.4 of 2025. A report was submitted by High Court Legal Services Committee stating that five plaintiffs could not be identified. 10. On 17.07.2025, this Court directed the parties to appear before the High Court Legal Services Committee for identification of the parties, along with their counsels, in terms of the compromise deed dated 28.02.2025 annexed with I.A.No.4 of 2025. A report was submitted by High Court Legal Services Committee stating that five plaintiffs could not be identified. A Memo dated 20.11.2025 is filed on behalf of appellants, wherein a copy of the family members certificate and the family tree along with aadhar cards are annexed. 11. On 24.11.2025, learned counsel for appellants submitted that as changes in the names after marriage were carried out, identification of the individuals (parties to the cases) was negated by High Court Legal Services Committee on the earlier occasion. 12. It is submitted that I.A.No.5 of 2025 is filed seeking amendment to the cause title and requested the Court to refer the matter to High Court Legal Services Committee for identification of parties, along with their aadhar cards, as their names were changed after marriage. This Court, after perusing the contents of I.A.No.5 of 2025 and order dated 17.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2025, requested the High Court Legal Services Committee to verify the documents and identify the five individuals (parties to the cases). 13. Administrative Officer, Telangana State Legal Services Authority, submitted the report on 24.11.2025, the contents of the report are as follows: “It is respectfully submitted that Sri Kiran Reddy Mallarapu, Counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants and Sri Md. Haneef Farhan, Counsel for the Respondents, have appeared before me today 1.e., on 24-11-2025, in obedience to the orders dated 24-11-2025 of the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana, along with their respective parties who are being identified by them, in continuation of the earlier report dated 17-07-2025. It is further submitted that I have gone through the Order dated 24-11-2025 of the Hon'ble High Court wherein, the Hon'ble High Court permitted to amend the cause title and directed the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to submit a report after identifying the parties along with their identity cards, of the five persons. It is further submitted that I have gone through the Order dated 24-11-2025 of the Hon'ble High Court wherein, the Hon'ble High Court permitted to amend the cause title and directed the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to submit a report after identifying the parties along with their identity cards, of the five persons. It is respectfully submitted that previously on 17-07-2025, the Petitioner/Appellant No.2 - Kumari Shashikala, Petitioner/Appellant No.3 - Kumari Sujana, Petitioner/ Appellant No.9 - Chevalla Rukkamma, Petitioner/ Appellant No.10 - Kamsamma could not be identified as their names were not tallied with their Aadhar Cards and accordingly this office has submitted the report upon which petitions for amendment of Cause Title and permission of the Hon'ble High Court were filed and as per the orders therein the Hon'ble High Court permitted to amend the cause title in respect of the above Petitioners/Appellant Nos. 2, 3, 9 & 10 as well as Petitioner/Appellant No.4 - Venkatesha, though he was identified earlier. In the light of the said orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the above Petitioners/Appellant Nos. 2, 3, 9 & 10 as well as Petitioner/Appellant No.4 are present and accordingly I have verified the particulars with their names i.e. Kumari Shashikala @ Peddapuram Sumitra, Kumari Sujana @ Katne Sujatha, Chevella Rukkamma @ Kammeta Rukkamma and Kamsamma @ Nagulapalli Shankaramma as well as Venkatesh @ Puppalagudem Venkatesh, respectively and their identification is established. Copies of their Aadhar Cards, which are endorsed by the counsel and the same are enclosed herewith. The copy of the Identity Cards of the counsel are also enclosed herewith.” 14. In view of the affidavit filed, compromise deed dated 28.02.2025 filed along with I.A.No.4 of 2025 and the report dated 24.11.2025 of the High Court Legal Services Committee for the State of Telangana, that identification of the parties is carried out, the statement made across the Bar by both the counsels that the matter is compromised, this Court is of the opinion that no further orders need to be passed in these matters. 15. For reasons aforesaid, I.A.No.4 of 2025 is ordered and S.A.No.534 of 2007 is closed in terms of the compromise entered. In view of the orders in S.A.No.534 of 2007, S.A.No.955 of 2007 also stands closed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.