Full Text
Translation output
DA.
#19, 12 & 23 HIGH COURT OF DELHI 19.
CS(OS) 619/2017
SHRI HARMEET SINGH Plaintiff
Through Plaintiffin person.
#19, 12 & 23 HIGH COURT OF DELHI 19.
CS(OS) 619/2017
SHRI HARMEET SINGH Plaintiff
Through Plaintiffin person.
VERSUS
S. HARPAL SINGH Defendant
Through Mr. Varun Ahuja, Advocate
Through Mr. Varun Ahuja, Advocate
WITH
CS(OS) 2098/2015 & LA. 8198/2017
HARPAL SINGH Plaintiff
HARPAL SINGH Plaintiff
VERSUS
HARMEET SINGH & ORS Defendants
Through Defendant no. 1 in person.
Mr. Chetanya Puri, Advocate for D-2 to 7.
AND
Through Defendant no. 1 in person.
Mr. Chetanya Puri, Advocate for D-2 to 7.
AND
CS(OS) 1605/2014
HARMEET SINGH Plaintiff
Through Plaintiff in person,
HARMEET SINGH Plaintiff
Through Plaintiff in person,
VERSUS
HARPAL SINGH & ANR Defendants 2017:DHC:9119
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
17.11.2017 While CS (OS) 2098/2015 has been filed by Harpal Singh seeking partition by metes and bounds, CS (OS) 1605/2014 and CS (OS) 619/2017 have been filed by his brother Harmeet Singh seeking partition, possession, permanent injunction and declaration.
On 18'*^ August, 2017, the parties to the CS (OS) 2098/2015 were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Mediation in the present case has been successful through the efforts of Ms. Anita Sahani, Advocate-Mediator.
A Settlement Agreement has been executed between the parties on 9^*^
October, 2017 wherein all the parties have agreed that the aforesaid three suits be decreed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding dated 24^*^ September, 2009 executed between the parties.
It is pertinent to mention that the Supreme Court in Afcons
Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (2010)
8 see 24 while dealing with Section 89 of the CPC observed that the settlement agreement will have to be placed.before the Court for recording it and in disposing of the suit in its terms, the Court should apply the principle of Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC and make a decree in terms of the settlement in regard to the subject matter ofthe suit, to make such settlement effective. f
This Court is satisfied that the compromise between the parties contained in the aforesaid Settlement Agreement and the Memorandum of
Understanding satisfies the requirements of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. The compromise contained in the aforesaid Settlement Agreement and
Memorandum of Understanding are lawful and therefore, this Court does not find any impediment in decreeing the present suits in terms of the aforesaid
Settlement Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding.
Consequently, present suits are decreed in terms of the aforesaid
Memorandum of Understanding dated 24"" September, 2009 and Settlement
Agreement dated 9"^ October, 2017 executed between the parties, which are marked as Ex.C-1 (Colly.). Registry is directed to prepare decree sheets in terms thereof.
With the aforesaid observations, present suits and all pending applications stand disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J NOVEMBER 17, 2017 rn
17.11.2017 While CS (OS) 2098/2015 has been filed by Harpal Singh seeking partition by metes and bounds, CS (OS) 1605/2014 and CS (OS) 619/2017 have been filed by his brother Harmeet Singh seeking partition, possession, permanent injunction and declaration.
On 18'*^ August, 2017, the parties to the CS (OS) 2098/2015 were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Mediation in the present case has been successful through the efforts of Ms. Anita Sahani, Advocate-Mediator.
A Settlement Agreement has been executed between the parties on 9^*^
October, 2017 wherein all the parties have agreed that the aforesaid three suits be decreed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding dated 24^*^ September, 2009 executed between the parties.
It is pertinent to mention that the Supreme Court in Afcons
Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (2010)
8 see 24 while dealing with Section 89 of the CPC observed that the settlement agreement will have to be placed.before the Court for recording it and in disposing of the suit in its terms, the Court should apply the principle of Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC and make a decree in terms of the settlement in regard to the subject matter ofthe suit, to make such settlement effective. f
This Court is satisfied that the compromise between the parties contained in the aforesaid Settlement Agreement and the Memorandum of
Understanding satisfies the requirements of Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. The compromise contained in the aforesaid Settlement Agreement and
Memorandum of Understanding are lawful and therefore, this Court does not find any impediment in decreeing the present suits in terms of the aforesaid
Settlement Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding.
Consequently, present suits are decreed in terms of the aforesaid
Memorandum of Understanding dated 24"" September, 2009 and Settlement
Agreement dated 9"^ October, 2017 executed between the parties, which are marked as Ex.C-1 (Colly.). Registry is directed to prepare decree sheets in terms thereof.
With the aforesaid observations, present suits and all pending applications stand disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J NOVEMBER 17, 2017 rn
JUDGMENT