Urmila Agarwal & Anr vs Pawan Properties & Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 1555 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Urmila Agarwal & Anr vs Pawan Properties & Ors on 6 March, 2026

Author: Arindam Mukherjee

Bench: Arindam Mukherjee

OD-2
                                  ORDER SHEET

                             CS 84 of 2023
                           IA No.GA/1/2023
                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                            ORIGINAL SIDE


                          URMILA AGARWAL & ANR.
                                   VS.
                         PAWAN PROPERTIES & ORS.


BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE

Date: 6th March, 2026.

Mr. V. V. V. Sastry, Mr. Debargha Basu, Ms. Khusi Gupta, Advocates for the plaintiffs.

Mr. Soumya Ray Chowdhury, Mr. Sanjay Ginodia, Mr. Manoj Kr. Tiwari, Ms. Rajeshwari Prasad, Advocates for defendant no.1.

Mr. Sukrit Mukherjee, Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Mr. K. K. Pandey, Ms. Mallika Bothra, Advocates for defendant no.2.

The Court : The plaintiffs and the defendant no.1 have settled the

disputes involved in this suit which is recorded in a Terms of Settlement

dated 25th February, 2026 signed by the plaintiffs and the defendant no.1

and their respective Advocates. The Terms of Settlement is taken on record.

The defendant nos.2 to 5 are not the signatories to the Terms of Settlement.

It is submitted by the plaintiffs that in paragraph 56 of the plaint it

has been categorically stated that no relief has been sought for against the

defendant nos.2 to 5. The word "Parties" has been also defined in such

manner in the Terms of Settlement.

On behalf of the defendant no.2 it is submitted that the plaintiffs and

the defendant no.1 are free to settle the disputes inter se between them

which neither can affect the right of the defendant no.2 nor will be binding

on the said defendant. It is further submitted by the defendant no.2 that in

the Terms of Settlement it is mentioned as "Parties" which pre-supposes

that the same includes all the defendants in the suit. It is also submitted

that it should be clarified that the Terms of Settlement has not been entered

into by and between the plaintiffs and the defendant no.2.

On behalf of the plaintiffs it is submitted that no Vakalatnama has

been filed by the defendant no.2 in the suit although writ of summons has

been served on the said defendant.

Mr. Paritosh Sinha, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

defendant no.2 submits that M/s. Sinha & Company, Advocates have

entered appearance on behalf of the defendant no.2 in the interlocutory

application and he takes the responsibility of representing the defendant

no.2 in the suit.

Mr. Sinha is, therefore, permitted to file his Vakalatnama in the suit

by 10th March, 2026.

After considering the Terms of Settlement which is duly stamped and

punched on 26th February, 2026, I find that the same are prima facie lawful.

The suit is decreed against the defendant no.1 in terms of the Terms of

Settlement by making the said Terms of Settlement a part of the decree.

The suit stands disposed of against all the defendants on the decree

being passed against the defendant no.1.

All pending applications in the suit also stand disposed of without any

further order.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Let the decree be drawn up expeditiously.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)

pa