Kailash Chand Singhal vs Darshana Devi
2015 Latest Caselaw 1385 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        CS(OS) 753/2013

                                                    Decided on : 18.02.2015

IN THE MATTER OF:
KAILASH CHAND SINGHAL                          ..... Plaintiff
                   Through : Mr. Nitin Soam, Advocate


                         versus
DARSHANA DEVI                                          ..... Defendant
                         Through : Mr. J.P. Tiwari, Advocate with
                         defendant in person.

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral)

I.A.No.3313/2015 (joint application u/O XXIII R-3 CPC)

1.

The present application has been filed by the plaintiff stating inter

alia that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the parties

have arrived at an out of court settlement, as recorded in the

Settlement/Compromise Deed dated 23.1.2015. Though the title of the

application describes it as a joint compromise application, the same is

not a joint application but a unilateral application filed by the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff/contractor has instituted the present suit for a decree

of specific performance of a Collaboration Agreement dated 21.11.2011,

whereunder he had agreed to undertake construction on the defendant's

property bearing No.C-7/168, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi, measuring 48 sq.

meters, upto the third floor. In terms of the Collaboration Agreement,

the plaintiff had agreed to pay a sum of `42.00 lacs to the defendant and

had agreed to raise the entire construction from the ground floor to the

third floor of the suit property. In the meantime, some disputes and

differences had arisen between the parties, due to which, the plaintiff

has instituted the present suit against the defendant.

3. It is stated by the counsels for the parties that in terms of the

settlement arrived at between them, the parties have agreed that the

defendant shall pay a sum of `16.00 lacs to the plaintiff in full and final

settlement of all the claims raised against the defendant in the suit. Out

of the total sum of `16.00 lacs, a sum of `4.00 lacs has already been

paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in cash and it has been agreed that

the balance amount of `12.00 lacs shall be paid through a demand draft.

4. Counsel for the defendant states that he has brought a demand

draft for the balance amount of `12.00 lacs, bearing Demand Draft

No.041853 dated 23.1.2015 drawn on Andhra Bank, 1636, Rohini Sector

8 Branch, New Delhi in favour of the plaintiff. The same is received by

the counsel for the plaintiff, who states that now nothing further remains

due or payable by the defendant to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not

left with any right title or interest in the suit property. It is further

agreed that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the

defendant shall not pursue the complaint case filed by her against the

plaintiff under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and

not shall she press the complaint filed by her in the Consumer Dispute

Redressal Forum, as detailed in paras 6 & 7 of the

Settlement/Compromise Deed dated 31.1.2015.

5. The Court has perused the compromise application. Though the

title of the application describes it as a joint application, a perusal

thereof reveals that the same has only been signed by the plaintiff and

his counsel and it is supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff alone. The

defendant and her counsel are present and they confirm that they have

arrived at a negotiated settlement with the plaintiff, terms whereof have

been recorded in the Compromise Deed enclosed with the application.

6. As the counsels for the parties state that the parties have arrived

at the aforesaid settlement of their own free will and volition and

without any undue influence or coercion from any quarters, there

appears no legal impediment in accepting the same. The parties shall

remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at

between them, and recorded in the Compromise Deed dated 23.1.2015

enclosed with the application.

7. The application is allowed and the suit is disposed of in terms of

the Settlement/Compromise Deed dated 23.1.2015, while leaving the

parties to bear their own costs.

8. At this stage, counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff had

deposited a sum of `30.00 lacs in the Registry in terms of the order

dated 26.4.2013 and now that the parties have arrived at a negotiated

settlement, the aforesaid amount may be released in favour of the

plaintiff along with interest, if any, accrued thereon.

9. Counsel for the defendant states that he does not have any

objection to the aforesaid request.

10. Accordingly, the plaintiff is at liberty to approach the Registry,

through counsel, for seeking release of the sum of `30.00 lacs deposited

by him along with interest, if any, accrued thereon.

I.A.No.26362/2014 (u/O XXIII R-1 CPC), IA No.11219/2014 (by the plaintiff u/O XXVI R-9 CPC) & I.A. No.20548/2014 (by the plaintiff u/O 151 CPC)

1. Counsel for the plaintiff states that he does not wish to press these

applications in view of the order today passed in I.A.No.3313/2015.

2. The applications are disposed of and the date already fixed in the

case, i.e.,11.3.2015 stands cancelled.

3. File be consigned to the record room.

                                                  (HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 18, 2015                                    JUDGE
sk