Sabina Soni Nee Dhindsa vs Gurdev Singh Dhindsa & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 8627 Del

$~34.
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CS(OS) 2728/2012
      SABINA SONI NEE DHINDSA                       ..... Plaintiff
                     Through: Mr. Rishi Agarwala, Advocate with
                     Ms. Misha Mehta and Ms. Gunika Gupta,
                     Advocates alongwith plaintiff in person.

                          versus

      GURDEV SINGH DHINDSA & ORS                ..... Defendants
                    Through: Ms. Diya Kapur, Advocate with
                    Ms. Manjira Dasgputa, Advocate for D-1 and
                    D-2 with D-1 and D-2 in person.
                    None for D-3
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                          ORDER

% 19.11.2015

I.A. 22828/2015 (by the plaintiff u/O I Rule 10 CPC)

1. This application has been filed by the plaintiff praying inter alia

that she may be permitted to delete the name of the defendant No.3

(brother) from the array of the parties.

2. Counsels for the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 and 2 state

that the plaintiff and the defendant No.3 are siblings and children of

the defendants No.1 and 2. The plaintiff has instituted the

accompanying suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and for

rendition of accounts in respect of premises bearing No.40, Golf Links,

New Delhi, and some other valuables and movable items.

3. Counsel for the plaintiff clarifies that the relief in the present suit

is mainly directed against the defendants No.1 and 2 and the

defendant No.3 had to be impleaded in the suit as he was a necessary

and proper party in the suit proceedings. After the pleadings were

completed and the suit was at the stage of recording of evidence, vide

order dated 03.03.2015, the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 and 2

were referred to mediation. In the course of the mediation, the said

parties have arrived at an out of court settlement as recorded in I.A.

22829/2015. It is in this background that the plaintiff seeks deletion

of the name of the defendant No.3 from the array of the defendants as

she does not wish to seek any relief against him in this suit.

4. On the last date, when the present application was listed before

the Court on 30.10.2015, Mr. Mirnal K. Sharma, Advocate had entered

appearance for the defendant No.3 and had stated that he had not

been furnished a copy of the present application and I.A. 22829/2015.

Counsel for the plaintiff was directed to furnish copies of the said

applications to the other side in the course of the day and the

defendant No.3 was directed to file a reply to the present application

with a copy to the other side.

5. The Court is informed by the counsel for the plaintiff that copies

of the applications were duly furnished to the counsel for the

defendant No.3 on 30.10.2015 itself. However, replies thereto have

not been filed and nor is the defendant No.3 or his counsel present

today. It is therefore assumed that the said defendant does not wish

to oppose the present application.

6. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

The defendant No.3 is directed to be deleted from the array of the

defendants. Amended memo of parties shall be filed within two days

with a copy to the other side.

7. The application is disposed of.

I.A. 22829/2015 (joint application u/O XXIII R 3 CPC)

1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff and

defendants No.1 and 2, daughter and parents stating inter alia that

during the pendency of the present suit, the parties had been referred

to mediation and they have arrived at an out of court settlement,

reduced into writing by virtue of the document entitled, "Settlement

Terms" dated 15.10.2015, enclosed with the present application and

marked as Annexure A.

2. A perusal of the said document reveals that the settlement

arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 and 2 is not

only in respect of the suit premises but also deals with

securities/shares/mutual funds/units/dividends etc. and further, the

plaintiff has undertaken to pay a sum of Rs.1.5 crores to the

defendants No.1 and 2 as detailed in the said document. Both the

parties state that their clients shall abide by the terms and conditions

recorded in the "Settlement Terms" dated 15.10.2015 and the suit

may be decreed accordingly.

3. The Court has pursued the present application. The same has

been signed by the plaintiff, defendants No.1 and 2 and their

respective counsels and is duly supported by the affidavits of the

signatories to the application. In view of the fact that a settlement has

been arrived at between family members and the parties, who are

present in Court, confirm having 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 said settlement. The document dated 15.10.2015 is

taken on record. The parties shall remain bound by the terms and

conditions recorded therein.

4. The suit is decreed in terms of the settlement arrived at and

recorded in the "Settlement Terms" dated 15.10.2015, while leaving

the parties to bear their own expenses. Decree sheet be drawn

accordingly.

5. The suit is disposed of alongwith the pending application.

HIMA KOHLI, J NOVEMBER 19, 2015 rkb/ap