Ravinder Kumari vs Radhesh Singh & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 44 Del

$~
8.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CS(OS) 1912/2012
      RAVINDER KUMARI                          ..... Plaintiff
                    Through: Ms. Anuradha Mukherjee and
                    Ms. Shreya Som, Advocates with plaintiff in
                    person.

                         versus

      RADHESH SINGH & ORS                        ..... Defendants
                    Through: Ms. Eti Solanki, Advocate with
                    Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Advocate for D-1 to 4.
                    Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, Advocate for D-5 to 7.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                         ORDER

% 05.01.2016

I.A. 24/2016 (by the plaintiff u/O XXIII R 1 CPC)

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

inter alia for permission to withdraw the suit in view of the settlement

arrived at with the defendant No.1 (sister of the plaintiff).

2. Counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff has instituted the

accompanying suit against her sister and the legal heirs of the

deceased brother in respect of premises No.17, Rajdoot Marg,

Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. She states that during the pendency of the

suit, the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 have arrived at an out of

court settlement reduced into writing by virtue of a Deed of

Settlement dated 21.12.2015, a copy whereof has been enclosed with

the present application and marked as Annexure A and the parties

have agreed that the defendant No.1 would execute a Gift Deed in

favour of the plaintiff in respect of 1/12th undivided share in the suit

premises. The court is informed that the said Gift Deed was executed

by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff on 22.12.2015.

3. Counsel for the defendants No.1 to 4 confirms the fact that her

client and the plaintiff have arrived at an out of court settlement and

she has no objection to the suit being disposed of.

4. Counsel for the defendants No.5 to 7 states that he has no

objection to the suit being withdrawn in terms of the settlement.

However, the withdrawal based on the settlement between the plaintiff

and the defendant No.1 should not be construed as binding on his

clients and nor should the said settlement prejudice the rights of the

defendants No.5 to 7.

5. Counsel for the plaintiff states that she has no objection to the

same.

6. Accordingly, the suit is disposed of as withdrawn in terms of the

averments made in the application, without binding the defendants

No. 5 to 7 to the settlement arrived at between the plaintiff and the

defendant No.1 and without prejudice to the rights of the said

defendants.

7. The date fixed, i.e., 18.02.2016 stands cancelled.

File be consigned to the record room.

HIMA KOHLI, J JANUARY 05, 2016 rkb/mk