Sunil Choudhary & Anr vs Molly Kapoor
2015 Latest Caselaw 8348 Del

$~30.
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    CS(OS) 588/2013 and I.A. 19996/2014, 19997/2014,
     18884/2015

     SUNIL CHOUDHARY & ANR                     ..... Plaintiffs
                  Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate with plaintiff
                  No.1 in person.

                       versus

     MOLLY KAPOOR                                  ..... Defendant
                       Through: Mr. Sangramsingh R. Bhonsle,
                       Advocate with defendant in person.

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                       ORDER

% 04.11.2015

1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs praying

inter alia for a decree of specific performance in respect of an

Agreement to Sell dated 08.11.2011, directing the defendant to

execute a Sale Deed in respect of the terrace above the second floor

alongwith one servant quarter in premises No.E-406,Greater Kailash,

Part-I, New Delhi.

2. This case has a rather chequered history. At the time of

admission, on 03.04.2013, an ex-parte ad interim injunction order was

granted in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendant from

alienating, encumbering or parting with possession of the terrace

above the second floor of the suit premises. After the defendant

entered appearance in the suit, with the consent of the parties, they

were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation

Centre for exploring the possibility of arriving at an amicable

settlement. Thereafter, the parties had filed a joint application under

Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC (I.A.9684/2014) stating inter alia that they

had amicably settled their disputes in respect of the suit premises and

it was recorded that the defendant had identified a buyer in respect of

the second floor and both the parties had agreed that the defendant

shall execute a Sale Deed in respect of the second floor in favour of

the prospective buyer and contemporaneously, she would execute a

Sale Deed in respect of the terrace above the second floor in favour of

plaintiffs herein. The said joint application was allowed vide order

dated 19.05.2014 and the suit was disposed of. At the same time,

liberty was granted to the plaintiffs to seek revival of the suit in case

the defendant is in breach of the obligations cast on her under the

Settlement Agreement.

3. It so turned out that the defendant breached the terms of the

settlement. As a result, the plaintiffs had to file an application for

seeking revival of the suit (I.A.19996/2014), which was allowed vide

order dated 03.08.2015. Thereafter, the parties were directed to

appear before the Joint Registrar for further proceedings in the suit. In

the meantime, the defendant had entangled two other parties in

litigation in respect of the second floor of the suit premises. One party

approached the Court for seeking specific performance of an

Agreement to Sell in respect of the second floor and instituted CS(OS)

275/2015 and another party sought recovery of the money paid by

him to the defendant in respect of the very same floor, i.e., the second

floor, by instituting CS(OS) 1967/2015. All the three suits are listed

today.

4. Counsels for the plaintiffs in CS(OS) 275/2015 and CS(OS)

1967/2015 submits that their clients have arrived at a comprehensive

settlement with the defendant in respect of the second floor of the suit

premises through the court annexed mediation. They submit that the

Settlement Agreement dated 29.10.2015 has been placed on record

and the suit may be decreed in terms thereof.

5. Pertinently, CS(OS) 275/2015 was listed before this Court

yesterday. However, Mr. Ankit Jain, counsel for the plaintiffs in the

present suit had intervened and stated that the settlement entered

into by the defendant with the plaintiffs in the other two suits may not

be permitted till the defendant settles the dispute with the plaintiffs in

the present suit as well. He also informed that the defendant had been

declared a Proclaimed Offender in a case arising out of FIR

No.349/2014 Police Station: Greater Kailash, registered against her on

the complaint of the plaintiffs in CS(OS) 275/2015 and he expressed

an apprehension that she may again renege from her obligations

under the Settlement Agreement. It is in this background that the

present suit was directed to be placed before this Court today

alongwith CS(OS) 275/2015 and 1967/2015 so that a comprehensive

settlement between the parties could be recorded.

6. Today, the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant are present.

Counsel for the defendant states that he has filed an affidavit dated

03.11.2015, whereunder the defendant has undertaken to execute a

Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the terrace above the

second floor of the suit premises alongwith one servant quarter and

she has further stated that in case she fails to execute the Sale Deed

in favour of the plaintiffs, then they shall be entitled to get the same

executed through an officer appointed by the Court. Counsel for the

plaintiffs has received a copy of the affidavit and is satisfied with the

contents thereof.

7. Accordingly, the affidavit of the defendant is taken on record and

she is bound down to the undertakings given by her therein. The

defendant, who is present, states that she has no objection to

executing a Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff No.1 and/or his

nominee. Both the parties agree that they shall take steps to execute

the Sale Deed in respect of the suit premises and have the same

registered within one week from today.

8. In view of the aforesaid settlement, a decree of specific

performance is granted in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendant is

directed to execute a Sale Deed in respect of the terrace above the

second floor alongwith one servant quarter in respect of premises

bearing No.E-406,Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi. The defendant

shall execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff No.1 and/or his

nominee within one week from today. In the event the defendant fails

to take necessary steps within the stipulated time, the plaintiffs shall

be entitled to seek their remedies in accordance with law. Decree

sheet be drawn accordingly.

9. At the request of the counsel for the defendant, Mr. Jain, learned

counsel for the plaintiffs states that his clients shall cooperate with the

plaintiffs in CS(OS) 275/2015 and 1967/2015 and the defendant for

quashing of FIR No.349/2014 Police Station: Greater Kailash.

10. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that since

the parties have finally been able to negotiate a settlement, the

plaintiffs may be refunded the court fee under Section 16-A of the

Court Fee Act.

11. In view of the fact that the suit is still at the stage of framing of

issues and the parties have revived the Settlement Agreement

recorded in I.A. 9684/2014, as noted above, the prayer made by the

counsel for the plaintiffs is allowed. The Registry is directed to issue a

certificate in favour of the plaintiffs for refund of the court fees, as per

law.

12. In token of acceptance of the terms and conditions of the

settlement recorded hereinabove, the parties shall affix their

signatures on the order sheet alongwith their counsels.

13. The suit is disposed of alongwith the pending applications while

leaving the parties to bear their own expenses.

14. File be consigned to the record room.

15. The date already fixed stands cancelled.

HIMA KOHLI, J NOVEMBER 04, 2015 rkb/ap