Sh.Sunil Jolly vs Smt. Krishna Jolly And Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 1255 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           CS(OS) No.979/2007

%                      Date of Decision: 08.04.2009

Sh.Sunil Jolly                                               .... Plaintiff
                      Through Mr.B.B. Bhatia      and    Mr.N.S. Bisht,
                              Advocate.


                                 Versus

Smt. Krishna Jolly and others                       .... Defendants
                     Through Mr.Rajesh Banati, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.   Whether reporters of Local papers may be                 YES
     allowed to see the judgment?
2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                    NO
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in                NO
     the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

IA No.3668/2009

This is an application by the plaintiff seeking permission to

deposit the appropriate stamp duty payable on the decree which is to be

passed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

Reply to application has been filed on behalf of defendants No.1 to 3

and parties have agreed that whatsoever stamp duty is payable the

amount shall be paid by the plaintiff.

Consequently, the application is allowed.

IA No.1856/2009

This is an application by the parties for decreeing the suit in

terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. The terms of

settlement are incorporated in the application.

The application is signed by the parties and their respective

counsel and is also supported by the affidavit of Shri Sunil Jolly,

Smt.Krishna Jolly, Sh.Oniel Jolly and Smt.Suman Tuli. There does not

seem to be any impediment in allowing the application and decreeing

the suit in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties.

Consequently, the application is allowed.

CS(OS) No.979/2007

Parties have settled their disputes and terms of settlement are

incorporated in IA No.1856/2009. The parties have also settled that

stamp duty payable on the decree which will be drawn shall be paid by

the plaintiff and an interim application to that effect being IA

No.3688/2009 has also been allowed.

Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is decree in terms of the

settlement arrived at between the parties incorporated in IA

No.1856/2009. The decree sheet be drawn where IA No.1856/2009

and 3688/2009 shall form part of the decree. Parties are left to bear

their own costs. Learned counsel for the parties, on instructions, also

agrees that the time for complying with the terms of settlement be

computed from the date of the decree. In terms of the settlement, the

interim order dated 25th May, 2007 is also vacated. All the pending

applications are also disposed of.

April 08, 2009                                    ANIL KUMAR, J.
'Dev'