Full Text
Translation output
L
$-14 HIGH COURT OF DELHI lA 10898/2013 (u/0 23 R3 CPC) in CS(OS) 1708/2011
MASTERVAAYUN(MINOR) & ANR Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Arjita, Adv. on behalf of Dr. Sarbjit Sharma, Adv. for plaintiffNo.
(i) and (ii).
Plaintiff Reema Jagota for self and for her minor child Vaayun.
$-14 HIGH COURT OF DELHI lA 10898/2013 (u/0 23 R3 CPC) in CS(OS) 1708/2011
MASTERVAAYUN(MINOR) & ANR Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Arjita, Adv. on behalf of Dr. Sarbjit Sharma, Adv. for plaintiffNo.
(i) and (ii).
Plaintiff Reema Jagota for self and for her minor child Vaayun.
VERSUS
SUSHMA JAGOTA AND ORS Defendant
Through: Mr Manish Kumarand Mr Amit Kumar and Ms Nalini, Advs. for defendant
Through: Mr Manish Kumarand Mr Amit Kumar and Ms Nalini, Advs. for defendant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MX. MEHTA
15.07.2013
15.07.2013
I.A.10898/2013 (under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC)
This joint application has been filed by the parties stating that they have arrived at a settlement in the mediation conducted on 31.05.2013 before Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation. Copy of the settlement agreement, which is signed by the parties, is received and taken on record.
The plaintiff Reema Jagota who is the natural mother and guardian of her minor son does not seem to have any interest adverse to that of her son.
Thus, she was competent and authorized to arrive at settlement on behalf of her minor child also.
In terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, a sum of
2013:DHC:6701 / Rs.1.75 crore is to be paid by Mrs. Sushma Jagota, defendant No. 1 to the plaintiffs (Reema Jagota and Master Vaayun) through buyer today in the evening. It is stated that inthe case ofbuyer defaulting topay, the defendant
No. 1 shall make arrangement of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1.75 crore by evening. It is agreed that out of the said sum of Rs.1.75 crore, a sum of
Rs.1.10 core is to be paid to the plaintiff No. 1 Master Vaayun which amount shall be kept in FDR till Master Yaayun attains majority. Balance amount of Rs.65.00 laldi shall be paid to plaintiff No. 2 Mrs. Reema Jagota by way of a Pay Order. It is agreed that possession of one room of the premises which is with the plaintiffs will be given by them to defendant NO. 1today itselfsimultaneously on receipt ofpayment. It is further agreed that the parties shallremain bound by the terms of the settlement agreement.
In view of the above, the suit stands disposed as compromised. All interim orders passed in this case stand vacated.
The Court fee may be refunded to the plaintiffs as per Section 16 of the Court Fees Act.
MX. MEETA, J JULY 15, 2013Ac.
2013:DHC:6701
This joint application has been filed by the parties stating that they have arrived at a settlement in the mediation conducted on 31.05.2013 before Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation. Copy of the settlement agreement, which is signed by the parties, is received and taken on record.
The plaintiff Reema Jagota who is the natural mother and guardian of her minor son does not seem to have any interest adverse to that of her son.
Thus, she was competent and authorized to arrive at settlement on behalf of her minor child also.
In terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, a sum of
2013:DHC:6701 / Rs.1.75 crore is to be paid by Mrs. Sushma Jagota, defendant No. 1 to the plaintiffs (Reema Jagota and Master Vaayun) through buyer today in the evening. It is stated that inthe case ofbuyer defaulting topay, the defendant
No. 1 shall make arrangement of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1.75 crore by evening. It is agreed that out of the said sum of Rs.1.75 crore, a sum of
Rs.1.10 core is to be paid to the plaintiff No. 1 Master Vaayun which amount shall be kept in FDR till Master Yaayun attains majority. Balance amount of Rs.65.00 laldi shall be paid to plaintiff No. 2 Mrs. Reema Jagota by way of a Pay Order. It is agreed that possession of one room of the premises which is with the plaintiffs will be given by them to defendant NO. 1today itselfsimultaneously on receipt ofpayment. It is further agreed that the parties shallremain bound by the terms of the settlement agreement.
In view of the above, the suit stands disposed as compromised. All interim orders passed in this case stand vacated.
The Court fee may be refunded to the plaintiffs as per Section 16 of the Court Fees Act.
MX. MEETA, J JULY 15, 2013Ac.
2013:DHC:6701
JUDGMENT