Delhi High Court
Balbir Singh And Another vs Deepak Kumar And Ors on 2 July, 2015
Author: Hima Kohli
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 695/2013 & IA No.6083/2013
BALBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER ..... Plaintiffs
Through : Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate with
plaintiff No.1 in person.
versus
DEEPAK KUMAR AND ORS ..... Defendants
Through : Mr. Anuj Rajput, Advocate for D-1.
Mr. Sunil Dutt, Advocate for D-2 with D-2 in
person.
Mr. Nausan Ahmed Khan, Adv. for D-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 02.07.2015
I.A. No.12867/2015 (joint application by the plaintiffs and D-2
u/O XXIII R 3 CPC)
1. The present compromise application has been filed by the
plaintiffs and the defendant No.2 stating inter alia that during the
pendency of the suit proceedings, they have arrived at an out of court
negotiated settlement, whereunder the defendant No.2 has agreed to
transfer five shops, subject matter of the present suit, in favour of the
plaintiffs for a sale consideration of `19.40 lacs.
2. Counsels for the plaintiffs and the defendants No.2 jointly state
that the plaintiffs have already paid a sum of `3.00 lacs to the
defendant No.2 and the balance sale consideration of `16.40 lacs is
being tendered to the defendant No.2, through counsel, by way of two
bankers cheques bearing No.004099 dated 04.06.2015 for a sum of
`7.20 lacs and No.004145 dated 24.6.2015 for a sum of `9.20 lacs,
both drawn on Punjab & Maharashtra Co-operative Bank Limited, Tilak
Nagar, New Delhi in favour of the defendant No.2.
3. It is stated that the defendant No.2 has already handed over one
set of keys of the aforesaid five shops in question to the plaintiffs and
the parties have agreed that the sale deeds shall be executed within
two days from today. The remaining terms and conditions of the
settlement have been set out in para 2 of the application.
4. Counsel for the plaintiffs states that in view of the settlement
arrived at between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2, they shall
not press the criminal complaint filed by them against the defendant
No.2. However, they shall pursue the said complaint against the other
parties, i.e., defendants No.1 & 3. He further states that in view of
the aforesaid settlement, his clients do not wish to pursue the present
suit any further, which may be disposed of, while reserving the right of
the plaintiffs to seek their legal remedies against the defendants No.1
& 3 in respect of properties bearing No.17/44A and 17/44B, Tilak
Nagar, New Delhi, that are under the occupation of the defendant
No.1, as per law.
5. Counsels for the defendants No.1 & 3 state that they do not
have any objection to the compromise between the plaintiffs and the
defendant No.2 being taken on record.
6. The Court has perused the present application. The same has
been signed by the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant No.2 and their
respective counsels. Counsel for the plaintiffs states that the plaintiff
No.2 is the wife of plaintiff No.1 and he has received instructions from
the plaintiff No.2 that she has no objection to the suit being decreed in
terms of the settlement recorded in the present application. The
application is supported by the affidavits of the signatories to the
application.
7. As the counsels for the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2 jointly
state that they have arrived at the aforesaid settlement of their own
free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from
any quarters and in view of the fact that counsels for the defendants
No.1 & 3 do not have any objection to the present suit being decreed
in terms of the settlement between the said parties, there appears no
legal impediment in accepting the compromise. The parties to the
compromise shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the
settlement recorded in the present application.
8. The suit is decreed qua the defendant No.2 in accordance with
the terms and conditions recorded in the present application, while
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
9. The application is allowed and the suit is disposed of along with
the pending application, with liberty granted to the plaintiffs to seek
their remedies against the defendants No.1 & 3 in respect of the
properties bearing No.17/44A and 17/44B, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, as
may be permissible in law.
10. The interim order dated 16.4.2013 stands vacated.
11. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that in
view of the fact that the parties have arrived at an out of court
settlement prior to the stage of framing of issues, the plaintiffs are
entitled to claim refund of 50% of the court fees in terms of Section
16-A of the Court Fees Act.
12. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the counsel for the
plaintiffs, the Registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the
plaintiffs for refund of 50% of the court fees, as per law.
13. File be consigned to the record room.
HIMA KOHLI, J
JULY 02, 2015
sk
