Delhi High Court
Dhanesh Chaudhry vs S.C Singhal & Anr on 2 November, 2015
Author: Hima Kohli
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1002/2012
DHANESH CHAUDHRY ..... Plaintiff
Through : Mr. Sanjeev Saraswat, Advocate
versus
S.C SINGHAL & ANR ..... Defendants
Through : Mr. Hemant K. Chaudhary, Advocate
for D-1 & 3.
None for defendant No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 02.11.2015
1. Pursuant to the parties being referred to the Delhi High Court
Mediation and Conciliation Centre, a Settlement Agreement dated
15.10.2015 has been placed on record. The terms and conditions of
the settlement have been set out in para 6 thereof.
2. Counsels for the parties state that due to oversight, while
referring to the site plan marked as Ex.A-1 and enclosed with the
Settlement Agreement, it was not mentioned that the area shown in
red colour in the site plan has fallen to the share of the plaintiff, the
area shown in green colour (marked as A,B,C & D) has fallen to the
share of defendants No.1 & 3 and the area shown in blue colour has
fallen to the share of the defendant No.2.
3. Counsel for the defendants No.1 & 3 confirms the fact that the
manner of demarcation of the terrace between the parties as
elaborated above by the counsel for the plaintiff is correct. He points
out that while drafting the Settlement Agreement, clause 6(h) refers
to the fact that the defendants shall vacate and handover the vacant
peaceful possession of the servant quarters in their possession to the
plaintiff when the construction is completed as per clause 6(d).
However, clause 6(g) ought to have been mentioned along with clause
6(d) in clause 6(h) for the reason that overhead tanks placed on top of
the servant quarters shall have to be relocated after the servant
quarters are reconstructed.
4. Counsel for the plaintiff confirms the aforesaid position and
states that he has no objection to clause 6(h) of the Settlement
Agreement being modified in the manner suggested above.
5. Counsels for the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 & 3 clarify
that though the defendant No.2 had been proceeded against ex parte
in the suit, he had appeared before the leaned Mediator and has
signed the Settlement Agreement, as would be apparent from a
perusal thereof.
6. Counsels for the parties jointly state that in view of the
settlement arrived at between the parties, the present suit may be
decreed.
7. The Court has perused the Settlement Agreement dated
15.10.2015. The same has been signed by the plaintiff, defendants
No.1 & 3 and defendant No.2 and by their respective counsels as also
by the learned Mediator. Enclosed with the Settlement Agreement is
Ex.A-1, which is the site plan of the suit premises. As the counsels
for the plaintiff and the defendants 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, there
appears no legal impediment in accepting the settlement. The
Settlement Agreement is taken on record and the parties shall remain
bound by the terms and conditions of the said settlement.
8. The suit is decreed in terms of the Settlement Agreement as
modified above. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
9. The suit is disposed of, along with the pending application, while
leaving the parties to bear their own expenses.
10. File be consigned to the record room.
HIMA KOHLI, J
NOVEMBER 02, 2015
sk
