Paras Dyes & Chemicals & Ors. vs Pradyot Kumar Ghosh & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 4928 Del

$~2-4
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ 1.          CS(OS) 636/2006
%                                 Date of decision : 29th September, 2014

        PARAS DYES & CHEMICALS & ORS.                           ..... Plaintiff
                         Through Mr.Vivek Singh & Mr.Dhruv Gupta, Advs

                         versus

        PRADYOT KUMAR GHOSH & ORS.                      ..... Defendant
                    Through Mr.Rama Shankar for defendants 1-3
                    Mr.Rishi Manchanda for D 4-5/applicants

+2            CS(OS) 637/2006
        PARAS DYES & CHEMICALS & ORS.                           ..... Plaintiff
                         Through Mr.Vivek Singh & Mr.Dhruv Gupta, Advs

                         versus

        PRADYOT KUMAR GHOSH & ORS.                      ..... Defendant
                    Through Mr.Rama Shankar for defendants 1-3
                    Mr.Rishi Manchanda for D 4-5/applicants

+3            CS(OS) 638/2006
        PARAS DYES & CHEMICALS & ORS.                 ..... Plaintiff
                      Through Mr.Vivek Singh & Mr.Dhruv Gupta, Advs

                         versus

        PRADYOT KUMAR GHOSH & ORS.                      ..... Defendant
                    Through Mr.Rama Shankar for defendants 1-3
                    Mr.Rishi Manchanda for D 4-5/applicants

        CORAM:
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

I.A.14934/2013 in CS(OS) 636/2006 I.A.14936/2013 in CS(OS) 637/2006 I.A.14932/2013 in CS(OS) 638/2006

1. By the present applications in the above three suits, applicants seek recall and review of the orders dated 15.3.2013 and 30.4.2013 with reference to abandoning the claims against the applicants with directions to defendant nos.1 to 3 to give an undertaking to the effect that they would diligently pursue their obligations under the MOU and the agreement.

2. Plaintiff had filed the present suit for specific performance, Declaration and Injunction. Defendant nos.1 to 3 are the owners of the suit property.

3. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff entered into an amicable settlement with defendant nos.1 to 3. Defendant nos.4 and 5 were also present when the settlement was arrived at, at the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. It is the stand of the plaintiff that since the defendants 4 and 5 were not interested in the settlement, plaintiff decided to drop defendant nos.4 & 5 from the array of parties. On 15.3.2013 when the matter was listed before the court, it was prayed that reliefs claimed against defendant nos.4 & 5 be treated as having been abandoned. Thereafter, on 15th March, 2013 an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC was filed by the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 3 which was adjourned to 30.4.2013. On 30.4.2013, the matter was adjourned at the request of plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 3 to 9.9.2013. The orders were passed in the presence of counsel for defendant nos.4 & 5. On 9.9.2013, the application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC was allowed. This order too was passed in the presence of counsel for defendant nos.4 & 5. No objection was raised.

4. After the suit having been decreed, the present applications have been filed in all the three matters by defendant nos.4 & 5 seeking recall of the

order dated 15th March, 2013 and 30.4.2013.

5. The applications are opposed by counsel for the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 3 on the ground that the applications are not maintainable and are barred by limitation.

6. At this stage, counsel submits that defendant nos.1 to 3 are willing to give an undertaking to this court that with a view of resolve the matter and to put an end to the dispute, as and when their share of property is sold, they would give Rs.50 lakhs to defendants 4 and 5. However, the said offer is not acceptable to the applicants. Mr.Shankar submits that should applicants decide to accept the offer made by defendant nos.1 to 3, they can approach this court by 17.10.2014 failing which offer would be deemed to have been withdrawn by the defendants 1 to 3 as this offer was made purely at the request of court without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

7. I have heard counsel for the parties. It may be noticed that the present suit was decreed on 9.9.2013, no applications for condonation of delay have been filed. The applicant is also not able to satisfy the court as to how the present applications are maintainable after passing of decree, nor there is any explanation as to how applications are within limitation. The applications are without any merit and the same are dismissed.

8. At this stage, Mr.Rishi, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he will take recourse to such remedies which are available to him in accordance with law.

G.S.SISTANI, J

SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 ssb