Through Mr. R.N. Dubey,Adv. with plaintiff in person v. SMT.MADHU & OTHERS Defendants

Delhi High Court · 08 Sep 2011 · 2011:DHC:15166
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE GITA MITTAL; SI. Drawn on Date Draft Amount. Favouring No. No.
2011:DHC:15166
civil appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court decreed a civil suit based on a voluntary settlement agreement and directed refund of court fees under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act.

Full Text
Translation output
$- 1.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CS(OS) No. 2020/2009 SHRI BABLOO Plaintiff
Through Mr. R.N. Dubey,Adv. with plaintiff in person.
VERSUS
SMT.MADHU & OTHERS Defendants
Through Mr. Sunil Sabharwal, Adv. with defendants in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
08.09.2011 The parties have arrived at a settlement on terms and conditions set out in the settlement agreement dated 5'^ September, 2011 which has been proved on record as Exh.P-l. The parties have made statements in support of the agreement. In terms of the settlement, the plaintiff has tendered the additional sum of Rs.18,70,000/- as damages to defendant nos.l & 3 on their demand in the following manner:-
SI. Drawn on Date Draft Amount. Favouring No. No.
ORDER

1. Syndicate Bank, Shahdara, Delhi - 110 06.09.2011 210029 Rs.9,50,000/- UCO Bank, Pahar Ganj New Delhi 2011:DHC:15166

2. Syndicate Bank, Shahdara, 08.09.2011 210052 Rs.2,10,000/- Ms.Madhu Sharma

3. Syndicate Bank, Shahdara, 08.09.2011 210053 Rs.1,10,000/- Ms.Pooja Sharma

4. Syndicate Bank, Shahdara, 06.09.2011 210031 Rs.6,00,000/- UCO Bank, Pahar Ganj New Delhi.

2. The above bank drafts have been tendered by the plaintiff to the defendants in the following manner:- SI. Draft No. Amount. Handed over to NO. 1. 210029 Rs.9,50,000/- Mr. Om Pal Sharma-Defendant no.2

2. 210052 Rs.2,10,000/- Madhu Sharma Defendant No.l

3. 210053 Rs.1,10,000/- Pooja Sharma Defendant No.3

4. 210031 Rs.6,00,000/- Mr. Dinesh Sharma - Defendant No.4

3. It has been agreed that another amount of Rs.32,30,000/- shall be paid to the defendant nos.l to 3 at the time ofthe execution of the sale deed.

4. The settlement has been arrived at voluntarily without any kind of force, pressure or undue influence. 3- '

5. The parties have prayed that the present suit may be decreed on terms and conditions detailed in Exh.P-1.

6. In view of the settlement between the parties, no issue survives for adjudication in the present case.

7. In view ofthe settlement between the parties, learned counsel for the plaintiff makes a prayer that the court fee affixed on the plaint, be directed to be returned.

8. It is, accordingly, directed as follows:-

(i) The undertaking given by the parties to remain bound by the terms set out in Exh.P-l is accepted.

2,063 characters total

(ii) The agreement between the parties is taken on record and the parties shall remain bound by the same.

(iii) The present suit is decreed on terms set out in para 6 of the settlement agreement dated 5'^ September, 2011 Exh.P-l which shall form part of the decree.

(iv) The Registry is directed to issue a certificate in the prescribed format to enable the plaintiff to seek refund of the court fee in accordance with Section 16 of the Court Fees Act.

(v) There is no orders as to costs.

SEPTEMBER 08,2011 aa GIT/^MITTAL,J