Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Ravinder Kumari v. Radhesh Singh

Delhi High Court

Jan 5, 2016

Judgment

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff, Ravinder Kumari, instituted a suit against her sister, Defendant No.1, and the legal heirs of their deceased brother concerning premises No.17, Rajdoot Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff and Defendant No.1 reached an out of court settlement, formalized by a Deed of Settlement dated 21.12.2015. As per the settlement, Defendant No.1 agreed to execute a Gift Deed transferring a 1/12^th undivided share in the suit property to the plaintiff, which was executed on 22.12.2015. The plaintiff filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC seeking permission to withdraw the suit based on this settlement. Defendants No.1 to 4 consented to the withdrawal, while Defendants No.5 to 7 did not object to the withdrawal but clarified that the settlement between the plaintiff and Defendant No.1 should not bind or prejudice their rights.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the plaintiff can withdraw the suit based on the out of court settlement with Defendant No.1 under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC.
Whether the withdrawal of the suit pursuant to the settlement affects the rights of Defendants No.5 to 7 who are not party to the settlement.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

The plaintiff informed the court of the settlement with Defendant No.1 and sought permission to withdraw the suit accordingly.
The plaintiff stated that Defendant No.1 executed a Gift Deed in her favor for a 1/12^th undivided share in the suit property.
The plaintiff had no objection to the rights of Defendants No.5 to 7 being preserved despite the withdrawal.

Defendants No.1 to 4 Arguments

Confirmed the out of court settlement with the plaintiff.
Expressed no objection to the suit being disposed of on the basis of the settlement.

Defendants No.5 to 7 Arguments

No objection to the suit being withdrawn pursuant to the settlement between the plaintiff and Defendant No.1.
Clarified that the settlement should not bind or prejudice their rights as they are not parties to it.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court noted that the plaintiff and Defendant No.1 had amicably resolved their dispute through a written settlement and the execution of a Gift Deed. The court accepted the consent of Defendants No.1 to 4 for withdrawal of the suit. While Defendants No.5 to 7 did not object to the withdrawal, they reserved their rights as they were not party to the settlement. The court accordingly permitted the withdrawal of the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, clarifying that the withdrawal would not bind or prejudice the rights of Defendants No.5 to 7. The court thus ensured that the withdrawal was limited to the parties involved in the settlement and did not affect others’ legal positions.

Holding and Implications

The suit was disposed of as withdrawn in terms of the settlement between the plaintiff and Defendant No.1. The withdrawal does not bind Defendants No.5 to 7 and does not prejudice their rights. The direct effect is that the dispute between the plaintiff and Defendant No.1 stands resolved, and the suit is closed accordingly. No new precedent was established by this order.

Show all summary ...

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CS(OS) 1912/2012 RAVINDER KUMARI ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Anuradha Mukherjee and Ms. Shreya Som, Advocates with plaintiff in person.

versus

RADHESH SINGH & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Ms. Eti Solanki, Advocate with Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Advocate for D-1 to 4. Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, Advocate for D-5 to 7.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

O R D E R

% 05.01.2016 I.A. 24/2016 (by the plaintiff u/O XXIII R 1 CPC)

1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff praying inter alia for permission to withdraw the suit in view of the settlement arrived at with the defendant No.1 (sister of the plaintiff).

2. Counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff has instituted the accompanying suit against her sister and the legal heirs of the deceased brother in respect of premises No.17, Rajdoot Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. She states that during the pendency of the

suit, the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 have arrived at an out of court settlement reduced into writing by virtue of a Deed of Settlement dated 21.12.2015, a copy whereof has been enclosed with the present application and marked as Annexure A and the parties have agreed that the defendant No.1 would execute a Gift Deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of 1/12^thundivided share in the suit premises. The court is informed that the said Gift Deed was executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff on 22.12.2015.

3. Counsel for the defendants No.1 to 4 confirms the fact that her client and the plaintiff have arrived at an out of court settlement and she has no objection to the suit being disposed of.

4. Counsel for the defendants No.5 to 7 states that he has no objection to the suit being withdrawn in terms of the settlement. However, the withdrawal based on the settlement between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 should not be construed as binding on his clients and nor should the said settlement prejudice the rights of the defendants No.5 to 7.

5. Counsel for the plaintiff states that she has no objection to the same.

6. Accordingly, the suit is disposed of as withdrawn in terms of the

averments made in the application, without binding the defendants No. 5 to 7 to the settlement arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and without prejudice to the rights of the said defendants.

7. The date fixed, i.e., 18.02.2016 stands cancelled. File be consigned to the record room.

HIMA KOHLI, J

JANUARY 05, 2016

rkb/mk