Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI l.A. 85/2010 IN CS (OS) 1182/2008
DR. SATPAL GUPTA Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Sunil Goel with Mr. Susheel Bhartiya, Advocates.
DR. SATPAL GUPTA Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Sunil Goel with Mr. Susheel Bhartiya, Advocates.
VERSUS
ASHOK KUMAR ALIAS ASHOK BHAMBANI Defendant
Through: Mr. Inderbir Singh, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Inderbir Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
08.01.2010 l.A. 85/2010 (0-23 R-3)
The present joint application under Order-23, Rule-3 CPC has been moved by the parties to the Suit; the plaintiff had claimed specific performance of an agreement entered into with the defendant.
The terms of the compromise/settlement have been recorded in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.12.2009, which has been signed by the plaintiff and the defendant respectively. The same is part of the record. It is stated that the settlement was facilitated by mediation through counsel whose names are mentioned in paragraph-S of the application.
The application is supported by the plaintiffs affidavit as well as that of the defendant; both of them are present in the Court along with their counsel.
2010:DHC:10350 Having considered the material on record and the submissions, the Court is of the opinion that interest of justice requires that the application has to be allowed.
CS (OS) 1182/2008
In view of the order made in I.A.85/2010, the Suit is decreed in terms of the
Memorandum of Understanding enclosed along with the application. The MOU shall be annexed to the decree to be drawn by the Court.
In view of the fact that the compromise was arrived at through the process of mediation voluntarily subjected to by the parties, the Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for invoking its powers under Section- 16 of the Court Fee Act. Registry is accordingly directed to issue a certificate enabling the plaintiff to refund of the court fee.
CS (OS) 1182/2008 is decreed in the above terms. Interim order also stands vacated accordingly.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J JANUARY 08, 2010 /vd/ 2010:DHC:10350
08.01.2010 l.A. 85/2010 (0-23 R-3)
The present joint application under Order-23, Rule-3 CPC has been moved by the parties to the Suit; the plaintiff had claimed specific performance of an agreement entered into with the defendant.
The terms of the compromise/settlement have been recorded in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.12.2009, which has been signed by the plaintiff and the defendant respectively. The same is part of the record. It is stated that the settlement was facilitated by mediation through counsel whose names are mentioned in paragraph-S of the application.
The application is supported by the plaintiffs affidavit as well as that of the defendant; both of them are present in the Court along with their counsel.
2010:DHC:10350 Having considered the material on record and the submissions, the Court is of the opinion that interest of justice requires that the application has to be allowed.
CS (OS) 1182/2008
In view of the order made in I.A.85/2010, the Suit is decreed in terms of the
Memorandum of Understanding enclosed along with the application. The MOU shall be annexed to the decree to be drawn by the Court.
In view of the fact that the compromise was arrived at through the process of mediation voluntarily subjected to by the parties, the Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for invoking its powers under Section- 16 of the Court Fee Act. Registry is accordingly directed to issue a certificate enabling the plaintiff to refund of the court fee.
CS (OS) 1182/2008 is decreed in the above terms. Interim order also stands vacated accordingly.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J JANUARY 08, 2010 /vd/ 2010:DHC:10350
JUDGMENT