SURINDER KAUR Vs. S RAJDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff Nos 1 and 2 have filed this application under Order 23 rule 3 CPC. The application is not signed by other parties, rather opposed by them. This order shall decide whether the suit can be decreed as sought by plaintiff Nos 1 and 2.

(2.) THE plaintiffs have instituted the present suit for restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from estate bearing Municipal no. 124, Janpath, New Delhi and the building comprising of Hotel Imperial constructed thereon and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the said property and for declaration and other reliefs relating to running of hotel Imperial, New Delhi. The suit has been contested vigorously by the defendants. On 18th July, 2007, while hearing arguments on various pending applications, this court gave the parties a chance of mediation and directed that counsel for both the parties shall hold a meeting and explore the possibility of mediation. Thereafter, the proceedings were adjourned from time to time on statement that conciliation attempts were being made. Thereafter, the matter was ordered to be taken in Chamber. On 17th November, 2007 the following order was passed:

(3.) THEREAFTER, an application being IA. No. 14432/2007 was filed by the defendant No. 2 under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC for amendment of the order dated 17th November, 2007 and for necessary directions. It was, inter alia, stated in the said application that the defendant No. 2 was willing to go ahead with the settlement only to buy peace and was ready to make the payment only if there was no tax liability on the defendant No. 2 or on the partnership firm M/s Akoi Saab; it was further stated in the application that the chartered accountants and tax advisor of the defendant No. 2 had advised that the consequence of making the payment as recorded in the order dated 17th November, 2007 would be far reaching and unaffordable. The defendant No. 2, therefore, sought direction that the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 4 should indemnify the defendant No. 2 against any tax liability. This application was dismissed on 25th March, 2008 on the submission of the counsel for the defendant that the settlement arrived at on 17th November, 2007 was tentative and since no final settlement could be arrived at and no application for compromise was filed, this application be dismissed as withdrawn.