VARUN JAIN Vs. NIKHIL JAIN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, counsel for the plaintiff states that due to a typographical error that has crept in the present application, the defendants No.2 & 3, i.e., M/s. Paamjees & Company and Shri Parminder Singh have been wrongly described as defendants No.3 & 4. He states that he may be permitted to carry out necessary corrections in the application.

(2.) Leave, as prayed for, is granted. Counsel for the plaintiff has been permitted to carry out necessary corrections against his CS(OS) 682/2015 Page 2 of 3 signatures in the application so that defendants No.3 & 4 are correctly described as defendants No.2 & 3, in terms of the amended memo of parties.

(3.) The present application has been filed by the plaintiff stating inter alia that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the parties have been able to negotiate a comprehensive settlement by executing a Mutual Family Settlement dated 1.5.2015. It is stated that a family settlement has been arrived at between Ms. Kumud Jain (paternal aunt of the plaintiff and the defendant) and the plaintiff and his wife and the defendant and his wife, whereunder they have agreed to divide the DDA flat and a shop in Kucha Khajanchi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi in equal halves. The Family Settlement also deals with some immovable properties, which are not the subject matter of the present suit.