Delhi High Court
Doris vs Denial & Ors on 20 February, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 155/2019
% 20th February, 2019
DORIS ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Manendra Mishra and Mr.
Vikrant Pratap Singh, Advocates
(Mobile No. 9818949469).
versus
DENIAL & ORS ..... Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
RFA No. 155/2019 and C.M. Appl. Nos. 8119-20/2019
1. This is a completely frivolous appeal by a dishonest plaintiff in
the suit, who entered into a settlement agreement running into eight
pages before the Mediation Centre in the trial court, with each page
being signed by all the parties including the present appellant/plaintiff,
and the trial court thus held that the settlement agreement is valid, and
it consequently disposed of the suit in terms of the settlement
agreement by the impugned order dated 18.09.2018.
2. Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC requires that a suit can be disposed of
as per the settlement if the settlement agreement is in writing and
signed by the parties. In the present case, there is a settlement
agreement in writing signed by all the parties to the suit, and who are
seven in number. The Settlement Agreement is not only signed by the
seven parties, but the Settlement Agreement is also signed by the
counsel for the appellant/plaintiff before the Mediation Centre.
3. The trial court has held that convenient allegations made by the
appellant/plaintiff that there is fraud and misrepresentation, have to be
rejected, inasmuch as, there are no particulars which are given of any
fraud or misrepresentation. The trial court, by the impugned order,
thus rejected the application of the appellant/plaintiff to treat the
settlement as null and void, and allowed the application of the
respondent no. 6/defendant no. 6 to pass a decree in terms of the
Settlement Agreement.
4. Ld. counsel for the appellant/plaintiff argued that
appellant/plaintiff has not received any amounts in terms of the
Settlement Agreement dated 30.06.2014, and if that is so, remedy of
the appellant/plaintiff is to seek enforcement of the Settlement
Agreement which has culminated into a decree, and not to make a
prayer for setting aside of the same.
5. Ld. counsel for the appellant/plaintiff then argued that
respondent no. 6/defendant no. 6 was not properly represented, but I
fail to understand how the appellant/plaintiff can have any locus to
argue this issue for the respondent no. 6/defendant no. 6 when the
respondent no. 6/defendant no. 6 is not questioning the Settlement
Agreement himself.
6. This is a completely frivolous appeal and therefore the same is
dismissed with costs of Rs. 15,000/- which will be deposited by the
appellant/plaintiff with the website www.bharatkeveer.gov.in within
a period of four weeks from today and receipt thereof be filed in the
Court within one week thereafter. All pending applications are also
disposed of.
FEBRUARY 20, 2019/AK VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
