Delhi High Court
Vinay Kumar Mehra vs Ajay Mehra & Ors on 1 July, 2015
Author: Hima Kohli
$~12.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 2205/2013
VINAY KUMAR MEHRA ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. R.P. Sharma, Advocate with
plaintiff in person.
versus
AJAY MEHRA & ORS ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate with LRs
of the deceased D-1, Ms. Niti Mehra, Mr.Yash
Mehra and Ms. Kimal Mehra in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 01.07.2015
I.A. 12711/2015 (joint application by the plaintiff and LRs of
the deceased defendant No.1 u/O XXIII R 3 CPC)
1. The present joint application has been filed by the plaintiff and
the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.1, stating inter alia that
during the pendency of the present proceedings, they have arrived at
an out of court settlement, reduced into writing by virtue of the
Compromise Deed dated 26.05.2015, marked as Annexure A.
2. The suit has been instituted by the plaintiff for seeking partition
of the subject premises, namely, property No.II/611, Gali
Ghanteshwar, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Counsels for the
plaintiff and the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.1 jointly
state that the defendants No.2 to 5 were impleaded in the suit as they
were occupying different portions of the suit premises as tenants. It is
submitted that on 26.09.2014, counsel for the defendants No.2 and 4
had stated that his clients intended to surrender their tenancy and
deposit the keys of the tenanted premises that were in their
possession. A perusal of noting file reveals that vide order dated
10.11.2014, the Registrar General had permitted the defendants No.2
and 4 to deposit the keys of the tenanted premises with the Deputy
Registrar (Original) and the same were duly received on the very same
date and placed in a sealed cover.
3. As for the defendant No.5, it is stated that vide order dated
15.04.2014, the said defendant was proceeded against ex-parte. This
leaves the defendant No.3. Counsels for the parties state that the
defendant No.3 had vacated the tenanted premises, i.e., the second
floor of the suit premises on 30.04.2015 and had handed over the
keys to the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.1. It is thus
stated that there is no impediment in allowing the present application.
4. It has been clarified that the only contesting defendants in the
present suit are the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.1. It is
an undisputed position that the plaintiff and the deceased defendant
No.1 are the joint owners of the suit premises and both parties have
now arrived at a settlement, whereunder the plaintiff and the legal
heirs of the deceased defendant No.1, i.e., the widow and two children
have arrived at a settlement as recorded in the Compromise Deed
dated 26.05.2015, whereunder they have agreed to partition the suit
premises by metes and bounds in the manner detailed in para 4 of the
Compromise Deed.
5. The present application has been signed by the plaintiff and the
three legal heirs of the deceased defendant No.1 and is supported by
their respective affidavits. The original Compromise Deed dated
26.05.2015, enclosed with the present application and marked as
Annexure A has also been signed by the plaintiff and the legal heirs of
the deceased defendant No.1. In the given facts, there does not
appear any impediment in allowing the present application.
6. Accordingly, the compromise application is taken on record. The
parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the
Compromise Deed dated 26.05.2015. The keys of the tenanted
premises deposited in Court by the defendants No.2 to 4 shall be
handed over to the party so entitled under the Compromise Deed.
7. The suit is decreed in terms of the settlement arrived at between
the parties as recorded in the Compromise Deed dated 26.05.2015,
while leaving them to bear their own costs.
8. The application is disposed of.
9. The date fixed, i.e., 22.08.2015 stands cancelled.
HIMA KOHLI, J
JULY 01, 2015
rkb
