Delhi High Court
Pramod Kumar vs Arjun Anand & Ors. on 10 July, 2014
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~04 & 09.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 2295/2009
ARJUN ANAND ..... Plaintiff
Through : Mr.Sachin Puri and Mr.Vishesh Issar,
Advs.
versus
PRAMOD KUMAR & ORS ..... Defendants
Through : Mr.Bonny Laishram, Adv. for Mr.Ujjwal
Jha, Adv. for defendants.
+ CS(OS) 1113/2011
PRAMOD KUMAR ..... Plaintiff
Through : Mr.Bonny Laishram, Adv. for Mr.Ujjwal
Jha, Adv.
versus
ARJUN ANAND & ORS. ..... Defendant
Through : Mr.Naresh K. Daksh and Mr.Manish
Verma, Advs. for defendant Rajbir Singh
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
ORDER
% 10.07.2014
I.A.NO.8510/2014 IN CS(OS) 2295/2009
1. This is an application filed by plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
2. Notice in this application was issued on 5.5.2014. Learned counsel for the
defendants submits that he had informed his client the next date fixed in
the matter but no instructions are forthcoming
3. Mr.Puri, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submits that the reason for the
defendants not contacting their counsel is on account of the fact that the
defendants have entered into an amicable settlement with the plaintiff,
which is also recorded in the order dated 13.12.2013 passed by
Mr.Dharmesh Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge. Order dated
13.12.2013 reads as under:
"13.12.2013
Present : Mr.Salim Khan, Ld, APP for the State assisted by IO
SI Sandeep Sharma from PS Vasant Kunj (North).
Complainant Arjun Anand is present along with
Mr.Vishesh Ishar, Advocate.
Mr.S.P. Kaushal, Advocate for the applicant/accused.
Reply is filed by the IO.
Mr.S.P. Kaushal, Ld. counsel for the applicant/accused as
well as Mr.Vieshesh Ishar, Ld. counsel for the complainant state
that this is an old matter pending for about five years between the
parties and parties have amicably settled their all pending disputes
in terms of settlement arrived at on 09.12.2013.
In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and
considering that the applicant/accused is in JC since 08.11.2013,
the applicant/accused is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing
PB&SB in the sum of Rs.25,000/- subject to the satisfaction of Ld.
MM/Duty MM.
4. It is further submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that in terms of the
settlement, a copy of which has been placed on record, the defendants
have also handed over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
Counsel further submits that it was agreed that the defendants would
withdraw CS(OS) No.1113/2011. It was further agreed that the defendants
would have no objection in case CS(OS)2295/2009 is decreed in favour of
the plaintiff to the extent of ownership, possession and declaration that the
plaintiff is the absolute and lawful owner of the suit property. In support
of the above submissions counsel has relied upon Clauses no.2 and 3 of
the Settlement Agreement, which read as under:
"2. The Second Party has agreed to withdraw his suit i.e. C.S.(OS)
No.1113/2011, titled, "Pramod Kumar Vs Arjun Anand & Ors.
which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
3. The Second and Third Party agreed that they will have no
objection as and when the First Party prays the Hon'ble High Court
to pass the Decree in favour of the First Party as prayed in his suit
i.e. C.S.(OS)No.2295 OF 2009, TITLED, "Arjun Anand Vs
Pramod Kumar & Ors., Limited to the extent of ownership and
possession and declare the First Party to be absolute and lawful
owner of the said property along with grant of possession."
5. Mr.Naresh Daksh, learned counsel appearing for Mr.Rajbir Singh
[plaintiff in CS(OS) 2411/2011 and defendant no.4 in CS(OS) 1113/2011]
submits that Mr.Rajbir Singh is the owner of the suit property and he was
in settled possession of the suit property, however, during the pendency of
the suit, Mr.Rajbir Singh has been dispossessed. Mr.Daksh furthers
submits that any order which is passed in this suit should not be binding
on his client i.e. Mr.Rajbir Singh.
6. Mr.Puri submits that since Mr.Rajbir Singh is not a party in
CS(OS)2295/2009 and in view of the suit i.e. CS(OS)2411/2011 filed by
Mr.Rajbir Singh his grievances can be decided in the suit filed by him.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
settlement agreement and the Order dated 13.12.2013 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge. Having regard to the fact that despite notice
having been issued in the present application filed under Order XII Rule 6
the defendants have chosen not to contest the application and further
taking into consideration that in terms of Clause 2 of the Settlement
Agreement defendant no.1, Pramod Kumar, had agreed to withdraw
CS(OS)1113/2011 and Clause 3 of the Settlement Agreement the
defendants have agreed that they will have no objection if CS(OS)
2295/2009 is decreed in favour of the plaintiff herein, Mr.Arjun Anand,
limited to the extent of ownership and possession and declare him to be
the absolute and lawful owner of the said property along with grant of
possession, present application is allowed. CS(OS)2295/2009 is decreed
in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring the plaintiff
to be the absolute and lawful owner of the suit property bearing Shed
No.58, Masoodpur Dairy Farm, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, subject to a
final decision, which may be taken in CS(OS)2411/2011 instituted by
Mr.Rajbir Singh. Let a decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
8. Application stands disposed of.
CS(OS) 1113/2011 & I.A.8513/2014 (O XII R 6 CPC - By D-1)
9. In view of the order passed in CS(OS) 2295/2009 present suit and
application stand dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
JULY 10, 2014
msr
