Delhi High Court
Sadhna Malhotra vs Sanjeev Budhiraja And Anr on 15 January, 2015
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 770/2011
Decided on: 15.01.2015
IN THE MATTER OF
SADHNA MALHOTRA ..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate
with plaintiff in person.
versus
SANJEEV BUDHIRAJA AND ANR ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate for D-1
with D-1 and Mr. Chandra Prakash Khanna
in person.
Mr. Prateek Choudhary, Advocate for D-2 `
with D-2 in person.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
I.A. 860/2015 (joint application u/O XXIII R 3 CPC)
1. The present application has been jointly filed by the parties
stating inter alia that they have arrived at a settlement, facilitated
by the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and
reduced into writing in the Agreement dated 07.01.2015.
2. Counsels for the parties submit that the terms and conditions
of the settlement in respect of the two properties, i.e., C-176,
Pushapanjali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi and property bearing No.45,
Pocket B-5, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi, have been set out in para 1 of
the Settlement Agreement. They jointly state that insofar as the
residential premises at Pitampura is concerned, it has been agreed
by the parties that the same shall be divided between the parties in
the following manner:-
(i) Plaintiff : 16%
(ii) Defendant No.1 : 42%
(iii) Defendant No.2 : 42%
3. It is also stated that the parties have identified a buyer for the
above property and have executed three separate Agreements to
Sell with him for selling their respective shares. The proposed
buyer, Shri Chandra Prakash Khanna is present in Court and
confirms the said submissions and states that he is also one of the
signatories to the Settlement Agreement dated 7.1.2015.
4. Coming to the plot situated at Rohini, the parties have agreed
that the said plot shall belong exclusively to the defendant No.1 and
neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No.2 shall be left with any
right, title or interest therein.
5. The Court has perused the present application. The same has
been signed by all the three parties as also their respective counsels
and is supported by their affidavits. Similarly, the Settlement
Agreement placed on record has been signed by all the three parties
and has been endorsed by Shri Chandra Prakash Khanna on each
page. The Settlement Agreement has also been signed by the
counsels on both sides and the learned Mediator.
6. As the counsels for the parties jointly state that the parties
have arrived at an out of Court 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 Settlement Agreement is taken on record. The parties shall
remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement. The
application is allowed and the suit is decreed in terms of the
Settlement Agreement, while leaving the parties to bear their own
costs.
7. At this stage, counsel for the plaintiff states that as the
parties have arrived at a negotiated settlement through the court
annexed mediation process and well before the stage of framing of
issues in the suit, she is entitled to claim refund of 50% of the court
fees.
8. In view of the provisions of Section 16-A of the Court Fees
Act, 1870, the Registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of
the plaintiff for refund of the Court fees to the extent of 50%.
9. Counsel for the defendant No.1 states that his client had filed
some original documents in this case and the same may be returned
to him.
10. Upon the defendant No.1 filing the certified copies of the
original documents, he shall be entitled to seek refund of the
originals.
11. The suit is disposed of alongwith the pending application.
12. The date already fixed before the Joint Registrar, i.e.,
24.02.2015 stands cancelled.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JUDGE
JANUARY 15, 2015
rkb
