VIJAY RANI Vs. MADAN LAL & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proceedings in the suit (suit no. 247/2010) of the petitioner instituted on 11.01.2010 for reliefs of declaration, partition, possession, rendition of accounts, permanent injunction, primarily concerning two immovable properties, they having been described as property bearing no. 16/975, Bapa Nagar, Pyare Lal Road, Old Chungi, Bodla Wala ki Basti, New Delhi 110005 and shop bearing no. 14-A/B, Sangita Press, Pyare Lal Road, Dev Nagar, New Delhi - 110005, stood concluded on 10.12.2013 on the basis of statements, inter alia, of the petitioner (plaintiff of the case) and of the first respondent (first defendant of the case), recorded in the context of an application moved under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which was submitted on 10.12.2013. It appears the settlement terms were to the effect that plaintiff was to receive Rs. 4 lakhs whereupon the suit was to be withdrawn and dismissed accordingly, such amount representing closure of her claim to right, title and interest in the said properties. The application was moved through Mr. V.K. Bajaj, Advocate who represented the defendants there, it being supported, inter alia, by the affidavit of the petitioner attested before Oath Commissioner on 10.12.2013, she having been identified in such context by Mr. V.K. Bajaj, Advocate, counsel for the opposite party, there being nothing in the proceedings recorded or the documents submitted indicating presence of her counsel at the crucial stage. She moved an application later under Section 151 CPC submitting grievance that the settlement terms were to the effect that she was to receive Rs. 8 lakhs and that her thumb impression/signature had been obtained, she having been made to believe that what had been settled had been properly recorded, the opposite party having thereafter gone back on the settlement as understood by her.

(2.) The trial court dismissed the application, as aforesaid, by order dated 18.12014, which is assailed by the petition at hand.

(3.) After some hearing, the counsel for the respondents fairly conceded that the application could not have been short-shrifted, without inquiry, in the manner done. He, however, insisted that the petitioner must first deposit the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs which she had received in terms of the above said settlement, as per her willingness so to do indicated in the application under Section 151 CPC and as further affirmed at the hearing before this Court. The counsel for the petitioner agrees to such deposit being a pre-condition to further inquiry.