Kapil Dutt Sharma vs Ram Kali Devi & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 7725 Del

$~24.
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    EX.P. 234/2012
     KAPIL DUTT SHARMA                     ..... Decree Holder
                    Through: Mr. Saurabh Chauhan, Advocate with
                    Mr. Varun Jain, Advocate with Decree Holder in
                    person.

                       versus


     RAM KALI DEVI & ORS                   .....Judgement Debtors
                    Through: JD-1 to JD-4 in person.

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                       ORDER

% 08.10.2015

1. The Decree Holder has filed the present execution petition

praying inter alia for execution of the judgment and decree dated

26.05.2011 passed in CS(OS)1499/2010. Pertinently, the consent

decree is based on a Settlement Agreement dated 24.05.2011,

entered into between the parties before the Delhi High Court Mediation

and Conciliation Centre.

2. At the time when the Decree Holder had filed the present

petition, it was his stand that Judgment Debtors have not complied

with the terms and conditions of the consent decree. During the

pendency of the present petition, on 25.11.2013, the parties were

referred to the Mediation Centre. Pursuant thereto, a Settlement

Agreement dated 09.12.2013 was placed on record, whereunder the

parties had agreed to divide the suit property as per the terms and

conditions recorded therein. On 11.12.2013, the parties had requested

that a Local Commissioner may be appointed to carry out the

demarcation/division of the suit property and deliver possession to the

parties of their respective portion in terms of the settlement against

acknowledgement.

3. Accordingly, a Local Commissioner was appointed to execute the

commission. The Local Commissioner had submitted a report dated

15.01.2014. As per the said report, both the parties had agreed that

to divide the premises they would construct a wall between 'X' portion

and 'Y' portion in the site plan enclosed as Annexure C to the

Settlement Agreement dated 09.12.2013.

4. Counsel for the Decree Holder states that the portion marked in

red colour in the site plan has gone to the share of the Decree Holder

and the Judgment Debtor No.2 and the portion shown in green colour

has gone to the share of the Judgment Debtors No.1, 3 and 4. The

Local Commissioner has stated in his report that the parties were

constantly at loggerheads and despite assurances given to him, they

did not construct the partition wall.

5. Today, the Court is informed by the counsel for the Decree

Holder and by the Judgment Debtors who appear in person that the

partition wall has been constructed and both the parties are in

possession of their respective portions.

6. In view of the aforesaid submission, nothing further survives for

adjudication in the present petition. The decree being satisfied,

learned counsel for the Decree Holder states that the execution

petition may be disposed of with liberty granted to the parties to

approach the Court in case they are unable to take steps to jointly sell

the suit property as agreed upon and recorded in the Settlement

Agreement dated 24.05.2011, that forms a part of the judgment and

decree dated 26.05.2011.

7. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The petition is disposed of.

HIMA KOHLI, J OCTOBER 08, 2015 rkb/ap