KHALEEK AHMED Vs. MOHD NAVED ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER impugned before this Court is the order dated 07.01.2011 vide which the objections of the defendant to the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Court, Delhi on 20.07.2010 had been allowed to be set aside and the objections raised by the defendant that he had been coerced to make this submission before the Mediator had been accepted; necessary corollary was that the parties were held not bound by the mediation proceedings; the matter was fixed for framing of issues.

(2.) RECORD shows that the present suit is a suit which has been filed by the plaintiff and against the defendant for declaration, possession and permanent injunction. The disputed premises comprise of property No. 460 (New No.2/490) Gali No. 2, Kardam Puri Extension, Delhi measuring about 30 square yards comprise in khasra No. 368. Contention of the plaintiff was that defendant No. 2 Brij Mohan had sold this property to defendant No. 1 Mohammad Naved Ansari who had sold it to the plaintiff Khaleek Ahmad. On 12.07.2010 at the request of the parties, the matter had been referred for mediation before the mediator. All parties i.e. the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 were present in person on that date. Matter had been fixed before the Mediator for 12.07.2010 at 12:00 noon. The statement recorded by the Mediator was on 20.07.2010 which is noted herein as under:-

(3.) RECORD shows that in the instant case, a settlement had been arrived at between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 which was duly incorporated and contained in this settlement recorded by the Mediator on 20.07.2010. Thereafter the matter was adjourned for two dates i.e. 16.08.2010 and 27.08.2010 on which dates counsel for the respective parties including counsel for the petitioner was present. The order of 16.08.2010 in fact recorded that the matter be listed for compliance of the terms and conditions as settled between the parties for 27.08.2010 meaning thereby that the parties had agreed to comply with the terms and conditions of their settlement recorded by the Mediator. Even on the next date, there was no grievance. Thereafter the petitioner/defendant No. 2 turned around from his stand and took a diametrically opposited one on 18.08.2010 when he made an oral submission before the Court that he had signed this agreement on the point of threat. Otherwise, there is no dispute that the settlement had been signed by him and the said settlement bore his signatures. It is also an admitted position that in this intervening period, the defendant had never assailed this facts.