GURNAM SINGH Vs. RAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed challenging an order dtd. 9/11/2017 passed by the Trial Court in CS No. 15068/2016 whereby an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC filed by the Petitioners/ Plaintiffs has been dismissed.

(2.) After some hearing, parties who are present in Court albeit Petitioner No. 2 is appearing through video conferencing have arrived at a settlement. Respondent submits that although there is no admission made by her before the Trial Court enabling the Petitioners to obtain a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, however, to put a quietus to the litigation, she does not claim any right in the suit property and will be satisfied if some time is given to her to vacate the suit property and directions are given to the Petitioners to compensate her in terms of money, as she is a widow and has no source of livelihood except for some part time household chores that she does as a domestic help in some houses.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioners, on instructions, submits that in lieu of payment of money to the Respondent, Petitioners are willing to give up their claim for mesne profits and damages and are also ready and willing to give a period of six months to the Respondent to vacate the suit property subject, however, to the Respondent giving an undertaking before this Court that she will vacate the suit property within six months and will cooperate with the Petitioners in quashing FIR bearing No. 526/2015, P.S. Palam Village, under Sec. 354, 354-A, 509, 447, 448, 452 and 34 IPC, before the Appropriate Court.