Delhi High Court - Orders
Inder Mohan Pal vs Piare Lal on 12 July, 2022
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~1(SB)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM (M) 1135/2019 & CM APPL. 34682/2019
INDER MOHAN PAL ..... Petitioner
Through: None.
versus
PIARE LAL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Gaurav Kochhar, Advocate.
(M:9810940055)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 12.07.2022
1. None appears for the Petitioner. None appeared even on the last date.
2. The present petition was filed challenging the impugned order dated 3rd May, 2018 in CS No. 28/20218 titled Sh. Piare v. Inder Mohan Pal passed by the ASCJ, Karkardooma, Delhi. Vide the said order, the right of the Petitioner to file the written statement was closed. Notice was issued on 2nd August, 2019 in this petition. The factual background of the present dispute, as captured by this Court in order dated 23rd December, 2019, is as under:
"1. Mr. Piare Lal - the Respondent herein instituted a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against his son, daughter-in-law and two grandsons in respect of property No. H-41A, Gali No.19, New Govindpura, Delhi-110051 (`suit property'). It is the Plaintiff's case that he had permitted his son's family to live in the first floor of the said property. However, the Defendants trespassed into the ground floor which includes two rooms and one CM (M) 1135/2019 Page 1 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:14.07.2022 10:56:53 small shop. In view of the enormous acrimony, the Plaintiff claims to have given public notices debarring them from having any rights in his property and accordingly the suit was filed seeking the following reliefs:
"a. PASS a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, their family members thereby directing them to quit and deliver the premises situate on first floor on property bearing No.H-41A, GALI NO.19, NEW GOVINDPURA, DELHI-110051 consisting of three rooms, kitchen, latrine-bathroom.
On the first floor shown in the site plan filed herewith and two rooms and one shop situate on ground floor of the said property also shown in red colour in the site plan filed herewith.
b. PASS a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants from parting with, assigning or in any way illegally transferring the possession of the portion i.e. consisting of three rooms, kitchen, latrine-bathroom on the first floor shown in the site plan filed herewith and two rooms and one shop situate on ground floor of the said property also shown in red colour in the site plan filed herewith. c. PASS a decree of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of institution of suit till the possession is delivered to the plaintiff on which, the plaintiff undertakes to pay the requisite court fee as provided U/o 20 rule 12 CPC.
d. COST of the suit may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
e. ANY other order/s which this Hon'ble CM (M) 1135/2019 Page 2 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:14.07.2022 10:56:53 Court deems fit and proper may be passed may be passed in favour of the plaintiff."
2. Vide order dated 16th April, 2018 the right of the Defendants to file the written statement was closed by the Trial Court and the matter was adjourned for recording of the Plaintiff's evidence. An application filed by the Defendants seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC was also rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 3rd May, 2018.
3. Challenging the said order, CRP. 111/2018 was filed before this Court. On 23rd May, 2018 when the said CRP was listed before the Court, the following order was passed:
"On the request of the parties, they are referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre to explore the possibility of amicable resolution. The parties are directed to appear before the mediation centre today at 4.00 p.m. Given the old age of the respondent, however, such process cannot be allowed to be protracted. The In charge, Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre is, thus, requested to ensure that the process is expeditious and a report is made to the court well in time for the matter to be taken up on 30.05.2018.
Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master"
4. Thereafter, the parties appeared before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, and settlement agreement dated 23rd May, 2018 was signed. CRP 111/2018 was then considered on 21st February, 2019, on which date the following order was passed:
"1. The respondent states that his new counsel Mr. K.S. Keshyap, Advocate is not CM (M) 1135/2019 Page 3 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:14.07.2022 10:56:53 available. Vakalatnama has also not been filed by Mr. K.S. Keshyap, Advocate. Let the vakalatnama be filed within two days.
2. All the petitioners, who appear in person, state that that they were not made aware of the contents of the settlement agreement dated 23.05.2018 by which the parties have amicably resolved and settled their disputes. They submit that their earlier counsel Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate was not present before the Mediator on that day. All the petitioners, who are present in court, admit their respective signatures on the settlement agreement dated 23.05.2018. The learned counsel states that settlement agreement does not bear signatures of Sh. Anuj Kumar.
3. List on 05.04.2019."
5. On 3rd July, 2019, ld. counsel for the Petitioner withdrew CRP 111/2018 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. The said order reads as under:
"1. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the petition.
2. The application is allowed. The revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. CM No.21642/2018, CM No.26847/2018 and CM No.28990/2019 are disposed of accordingly. The next date of hearing i.e. 02.08.2019 stands cancelled."
6. The present petition was thereafter filed on the ground that liberty was sought by the Petitioner when the CRP was withdrawn. However, it is seen that no liberty was sought or given by the Court when the CRP was withdrawn."
3. On the next date i.e., 14th November, 2019, a submission was made before the Court that the Petitioner, despite signing a settlement agreement CM (M) 1135/2019 Page 4 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:14.07.2022 10:56:53 before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, have sought to resile from the same. Under such circumstances, directions were issued for the parties to remain present. The said order dated 14th November, 2019 is set out below:
"1. It is submitted that despite signing of the settlement agreement before the Mediation centre, the Petitioners have resiled from the same. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the earlier counsel who is claimed to have signed the settlement did not actually sign the same. This court is of the opinion that if the settlement was signed before the mediation centre, parties ought not to be permitted to resile from the same by blaming counsel.
2. It is accordingly directed that Sh. Inder Mohan Pal, Mr. Mohit Kumar, Mr. Piare Lai, Smt. Kamla and Sh. Gautam who have signed the settlement agreement shall remain present on the next date of hearing.
3. Ld. Mediator Ms. Veena Ralli, to submit a report if the settlement agreement was signed and details of the meetings held and who were the parties present on various dates. Let the original record of the mediation centre related to this case be called for. Record of CRP No. 111/2018 be also called for the next date.
4. Mr. Anuj Kumar and Mr. C.S. Bhandari, Ld. counsels for the parties in the mediation process shall also remain present on the next date.
5. Registry to ascertain the details of all the above persons as also ld. Counsels and issue notices to them including intimation through SMS and email.
6. List on 23rd December, 2019."
4. The report of the ld. Mediator was produced before the Court on the next date. The statement of the parties i.e., Mr. Inder Mohan Pal, Mr. Gautam, Mr. Mohit and Ms. Kamla @ Pooja were also recorded by the Court on 23rd December, 2019 and a detailed order was passed. The CM (M) 1135/2019 Page 5 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:14.07.2022 10:56:53 statements of the two lawyers, both of whom were known as Mr. Anuj Kumar were also recorded on 2nd March, 2020. The Call Data Record (CDR) were also summoned by the Court vide order dated 12th March, 2020 and the report has been received from the mobile companies.
5. On an overall appreciation of the statements recorded before the Court as also the mediation record, this Court is clearly of the opinion that a proper settlement was arrived at between the parties in the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre as recorded in the settlement agreement dated 23rd May, 2018. The said agreement is signed by the parties, ld. counsels for the parties as also the ld. Mediator. The terms of settlement as contained in the agreement are as under:
"a. The constituents of the First Party admit the Second Party to be the owner of the property bearing no. H-41-A, Gali No. 39, New Govindpura, Delhi - 110051.
b. The constituents of the First Party agree and undertake to hand over the vacant, peaceful and physical possession of three rooms, kitchen, latrine, bathroom on the first floor and two rooms and one shop on the ground floor of the property No. H-41 A, Gali No. 39, New Govindpura, Delhi - 110051 to the Second Party or his legal heirs, successors, assignees etc. on or before 24.11.2018. c. The Second Party agrees to give up his claims towards damages and mesne profits on getting the vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the portion of the said property being H-41-A, Gali No. 39, New Govindpura, Delhi -- 110051 by the constituents of the First Party on or before 24.11.2018.
d. The parties agree that a decree shall be passed in CM (M) 1135/2019 Page 6 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:14.07.2022 10:56:53 terms of the prayers made by the Second Party in CS No.28/18 pending before Mr. Jay Thareja, ASCJ, East District, Karkardooma, Delhi in respect of the property no. H-41-A, Gali No. 39, New Govindpura, Delhi - 110051 and for damages as claimed by the Second Party as per prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the plaint in CS No.28/18.
e. The Second Party agrees that on handing over of vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the portions of property bearing No. H-41-A, Gali No. 39, New Govindpura, Delhi - 110051 by the constituents of the First Party to the Second Party, the decree passed in terms of the present settlement agreement shall stand satisfied.
f. The parties further agree, that the stipulations made herein this settlement agreement shall be treated as their undertakings to the Hon'ble Court and in case of non-compliance, they shall be held for contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. g. The parties further agree that in case of failure of the constituents of the First Party to hand over vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the property No. H-41-A, Gali No. 39, New Govindpura, Delhi - 110051 to the Second Party on or before 24.11.2018, the Second Party shall be entitled to seek execution of the decree passed in terms of this settlement agreement as well as the constituents of the First Party shall be held for contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
h. The-parties agree, that they shall not interfere in the peaceful living of each other ever in future and shall ensure to maintain harmony in their peaceful living till the constituents of the First Party hands over the possession in terms of the present settlement agreement and also thereafter."CM (M) 1135/2019 Page 7 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:14.07.2022 10:56:53
6. As per the above settlement agreement dated 23rd May 2018, the Petitioner, and parties claiming through him, recognised the rights of the Respondent the suit property. The Petitioner had further undertaken to vacate the suit property on or before 24th November, 2018 and hand over peaceful possession to the Respondent. In view of the undertaking of the Petitioner, the Respondent gave up the prayer of damages and mesne profits.
7. The agreement was signed by the following parties:
Mr. Inder Mohan Pal Mr. Mohit Kumar Mr. Piare Lal Ms. Kamla @ Pooja Mr. Gautam Mr. Anuj Kumar, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. C.S. Bhandari, ld. Counsel for the Respondent Ms. Veena Ralli, ld. Mediator
8. In the statements recorded before this Court, the stand of the parties is as under:
i. Statement of Mr. Inder Mohan Pal (Petitioner) I admit my signatures on the settlement agreement dated 23rd May, 2018. I am an auto driver. My son engaged the lawyer. I do not know who the lawyer is. We reached the High Court around 10:30 to 11:00 a.m. The lawyer gave us the pass one day before the hearing. Our matter was listed in the Court and we had gone to the Court. I do not know who appeared for us on the said date as I am 62 years of age. Question:- Did anyone appear for you in the Court on the said date?
Answer:- (Refused to answer) CM (M) 1135/2019 Page 8 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:14.07.2022 10:56:53 We did not have any lawyer in the Court I do not know who took us to the mediation centre and he told us that we would get the appeal if we signed the documents, and so we signed the documents. We met the Mediator on that date and signed the papers in front of the Mediator.
ii. Statement of Mr. Gautam S/o Mr. Inder Mohan Pal I admit my signatures on the settlement agreement dated 23rd May, 2018. On 23rd May, 2018, we came to the High Court Mediation Centre. We met the ld. Mediator. I came to the High Court on 23rd May, 2018 around 1:00-2:00 p.m. The gate pass was given to us by ld. counsel - Mr. Anuj Kumar. He had signed the gate pass for entry to the High Court. I came with my mother and my brother. My father was not with me. We went to the Court room for the first time and we came out. After that, we were taken to a big hall where we were asked to sign the papers and we signed them. I had called up my father to come for signing of the documents. We signed the documents around 3:00- 4:00 p.m. We left the High Court premises around 4:30-5:00 p.m. On the said date, Mr. Anuj Kumar - my counsel, was in Chandigarh and I do not know who appeared for us on the said date. I recognise my grandfather, who is sitting in Court. I also do not know who took us to the Mediation Centre and who signed as Mr. Anuj Kumar. I also do not know what is written in the settlement agreement. The pass was given to me by Mr. Anuj Kumar, one day before the hearing.
iii. Statement of Ms. Kamla @ Pooja W/o Inder Mohan Pal I admit my signatures on the settlement agreement dated 23rd May, 2018. I was married in 1988 and I have been residing in this house since then. I am not very educated. My husband and my son go to the lawyer's chamber. The name of the lawyer was Mr. Anuj Kumar. I recognize Mr. Anuj Kumar- our lawyer.CM (M) 1135/2019 Page 9 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:14.07.2022 10:56:53
I met him for the first time on 30th May, 2018 in the High Court. On 23rd May, 2018, I came to the High Court around 10:00 a.m. I was with my husband. I came with my husband and with my son in the morning around 10'o clock. I do not have the comprehension as to where I go when I come to the Court. Wherever my son takes me, I go with him. We were told by the person who took us to sign "Appeal Mil Jayegi", so we signed the papers. I met the Mediator in the High Court. Because my husband signed the documents, I also signed the documents. The house belongs to my father-in-law. his name is Mr. Piare Lal. I did not give a statement that we will vacate the property by 24th November, 2019.
iv. Statement of Mr. Mohit S/o Mr. Inder Mohan Pal I admit my signatures on the settlement agreement dated 23rd May, 2018. I have studied till 6th Standard. I am engaged in repairing of air conditioners and refrigerators. I work in Whirlpool India in Krishna Nagar.
I came to the Court between 11:00-12 noon on rd 23 May, 2018 with my father, mother and brother. My brother brings the pass for entry to the High Court. He had only brought the pass. I do not know from where he brought it.
After coming here, we went to Court No.28. Some lawyer appeared for us. I do not know from where he came. We went to one office on the Second Floor. We had exited outside the building. We were waiting on the Second Floor outside, and my father called me and told me to sign the documents. In the said room, there was a Madam who was present. Along with her, even my grandfather was present. I did not understand what they were speaking on the said date."
9. From the above statements it is clear that none of the parties dispute their signatures on the settlement agreement dated 23rd May, 2018. They CM (M) 1135/2019 Page 10 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:14.07.2022 10:56:53 appear to merely feign ignorance or refuse to answer any of the queries truthfully. The answers are evasive. Thus, the allegations raised to challenge the settlement are merely against the counsel on the ground that he was not present.
10. The statements of the advocates were also recorded by the Court on 2nd March, 2020 which read as under:
i. Statement of Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate (Enrolment No. D- 1068/2014) I studied three years LLB course from Kumaon University, Nainital. I completed B. Com through correspondence from Delhi University. I completed my LLB course in 2013. I had completed my graduation in 2002. In between, I was preparing for my competitive exams. I enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi in 2014. I used to work with Mr. Radhey Lal Sharma, Advocate, Chamber No F-316 in the Karkardooma Courts. I practiced under him for a period of almost three years. Around 2017, I joined Mr. Anuj Kumar (Enrolment no. D-2180/2006). He also practices in the Karkardooma Courts. As far as I recollect, my signatures are not on the Vakalatnama of this case. On 23rd May, 2018, I came to the High Court only around 12.30 pm. I did not appear before the Court of Hon'ble Justice Gauba, where the matter was listed. The gate pass was given by my said senior, Mr. Anuj Kumar (Enrolment no. D- 2180/2006) and not by me. I was introduced to the litigants by my senior, and after that, he left the Court. The mediation was taken up around 4.pm, The ld. Mediator explained the terms of settlement to the clients. The clients who were present from my side were Mr. Inder Mohan Pal, his wife and his children. On the opposing side, ld. counsel Mr. Bhandari, along with Mr. Piare Lal was present. Our clients signed the terms of the settlement only after CM (M) 1135/2019 Page 11 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:14.07.2022 10:56:53 understanding the crux of the same from the Id.
Mediator.
ii. Statement of Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate (Enrolment No. D- 2180/2006) I was engaged by Mr. Gautam, the son of Mr. Inder Mohan Pal. I was engaged sometime in the second or third week of May, 2018. I used to work from F-516 Karkardooma Courts, which was my chamber at that time. Mr. Gautam had come to my office on 21st May, 2018 and had collected the gate passes for himself and his family. I met them in the Court at about 10.30 am. The matter was listed in Hon'ble Justice Gauba's Court. I do not recall the exact Court room number. The Hon'ble Court heard the matter for some time and noticed that there was only three days' delay in the written statement, and the Respondent was on caveat. Mr Piare Lai was present as well. Considering the fact that the dispute was between family members, the Court sent the parties to mediation. All the parties were present in Court when the Court referred the matter to the mediation. I thereafter introduced the parties to my colleague - Mr. Anuj Kumar (Enrolment No. D-1068/2014) as I had to attend a family commitment and also go to Chandni Chowk for a meeting. After exiting the Courtroom, I introduced my colleague, Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate to the clients and left the High Court. I continuously received phone calls from my colleagues who were in the mediation proceedings and the parties as well. All the parties agreed to the settlement terms and signed the settlement in front of the ld. Mediator.
11. Thus, the clear stand of both the advocates is that the Petitioner and his family signed the settlement agreement only after the crux of the was explained to them by the ld. Mediator. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner had CM (M) 1135/2019 Page 12 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:14.07.2022 10:56:53 introduced his associate by the same name to the Petitioner and his family. Further, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner was in constant touch with the party on phone during the mediation proceedings. The mere fact that instead of the advocate engaged by the Petitioner-Mr. Anuj Kumar, his associate by the same name, appeared in the Mediation Centre cannot be used as an opportunity by the Petitioner to resile from the settlement. Ld. Mediator- Ms. Veena Ralli having appended her signatures to the settlement agreement and all the parties having signed the same, sanctity has to be given to the said agreement. Parties cannot be allowed to raise baseless allegations and seek to withdraw from the same on specious grounds. If the same is permitted by the Court, it would be contrary to the letter and spirit of Section 89 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
12. In the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, the settlement having been arrived at between the parties in terms of the agreement dated 23rd May, 2018, the suit for injunction filed by the Respondent shall stand decreed in terms of the settlement agreement dated 23rd May, 2018.
13. The trial court record in this case being suit no. CS. No. 28/2018 titled Sh. Piare Lal v. Inder Mohan Pal pending before the Court of Ld. JSCC- ASCJ-GJ, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi shall now be requisitioned and a decree sheet shall be drawn by the Registry of this Court. All persons acting for or on behalf of the parties shall be bound by the terms of the decree.
14. Ld. counsel for the Respondent also submits that the possession of the suit property has still not been handed over by the Petitioner. The possession of the suit property in terms of the decree sheet shall be handed over by the CM (M) 1135/2019 Page 13 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:14.07.2022 10:56:53 Petitioner within six weeks failing which the Respondent is free to avail of his remedies in accordance with law.
15. With these observations, the present petition, along with all pending applications, is disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
JULY 12, 2022 dj/sk
16. At the time when the Court was rising, around 4 pm, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner- Mr. R.C. Pathak, has appeared and prayed that the matter be adjourned due to personal difficulty. He has been apprised of the order passed today.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
JULY 12, 2022 dj/sk CM (M) 1135/2019 Page 14 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:14.07.2022 10:56:53