Joginder Singh vs Param Jeet Kaur & Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 3723 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                            Date of Judgment:01.06.2012

+     CM(M) 698/2012 and CM Nos. 10585-10588/2012

      JOGINDER SINGH                              ..... Petitioner
                   Through             Mr. Rajshekhar Rao and
                                       Ms.Amrita Biswas, Adv.

                    versus

      PARAM JEET KAUR & ANR                           ..... Respondents
                   Through  None.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. The order impugned is dated 19.10.2011 vide which the

application filed by the plaintiff seeking setting aside of the compromise

recorded on 15.11.2010 had been dismissed. Even today before this

court there is a little explanation by the petitioner for impugning an

order dated 19.10.2011 i.e. after a gap of more than 7-1/2 months. On

the ground of delay and latches alone this petition should not be

entertained. There is no strict rule which binds this court on limitation

yet if there is an unexplainable delay the petition may not be entertained.

2. Be that as it may, even on merits the order impugned suffers from

no infirmity.

3. Record shows that a suit had been filed by the plaintiff- Joginder

Singh against his sister-in-law Param Jeet Kaur; the plaintiff was being

represented by his next friend and guardian i.e. his wife namely

Smt.Meena Kumari. On 15.11.2010, the parties had settled their

disputes in terms of the settlement recorded in the compromise

application Ex.P1; the order has noted that the parties shall bound by the

terms of the aforenoted compromise; statements of the parties were

record on oath. In terms of the compromise, the plaintiff had agreed to

accept Smt. Param Jeet Kaur as an absolute and sole owner of the suit

property bearing No. C-124, Vivek Vihar, Delhi-110095; in lieu thereof

he was paid a sum of Rs. 15 lacs; all cases inter se pending between the

parties would also foreclose. It is not in dispute that thereafter the

petitioner/plaintiff has since vacated the suit premises; he has acted

upon this compromise. This compromise as noted (supra) is dated

15.11.2010; the plaintiff/petitioner was however not happy with this

compromise; attention has been drawn to the legal notice dated

04.12.2010 which had been sent by him and although in this legal notice

he has mentioned about the compromise recorded on 15.11.2010 but

there is no mention that the defendant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 15

lacs in lieu of the aforenoted settlement; in fact this legal notice was

harping upon a settlement which does not in any manner form a part of

Ex. P1 or the order dated 15.11.2010; it spoke of a settlement of Rs. 45

lacs which was not a part of Ex. P1. In this background, the petitioner

seeking setting aside of this compromise which was duly arrived at

between the parties (which nowhere found mention in Ex. P1) is without

any force. The application seeking recall of the compromise decree

dated 15.11.2010 was then filed on 23.12.2010; it is not as if the

petitioner even in this application has challenged the terms of the

compromise; his contention is that there was a delay on the part of the

defendant in the payment of cheque; again in this application there is a

reference to a payment of Rs. 45 lacs; how the figure of 15 lacs has

appeared in the compromise Ex. P1 has neither been explained and in

fact, no efforts have been made in this application to explain this

discrepancy; a mere bald submission that a fraud has been played upon

the applicant/petitioner would not be sufficient to set aside the

compromise which has been recorded on a joint application moved by

both the parties; the plaintiff having been represented through his next

friend and guardian (i.e. his wife namely Meena Kumar) who has signed

the aforenoted application (under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of

Civil Procedure) and detailed statements of all the respective parties

including Smt. Meena Kumari had been recorded on oath.

4. In this background, the impugned order dismissing the application

seeking setting aside of the compromise does not in any manner suffers

from any infirmity.

5. Petition is without any merit; it is dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J JUNE 01, 2012 rb