Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ranbir Singh Rangwala vs Smt. Namrata Ladhani on 31 July, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
1 M.P. No.2039/2024
and M.P. No.1906/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 31st OF JULY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 2039 of 2024
SMT. KAMAL RANBIR SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. NAMRATA LADHANI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Smt. Shobha Menon- Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Choubey-
Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Sanjay Agrawal- Senior Advocate with Shri Vasu Waswani-
Advocate for respondent No. 1.
WITH
MISC. PETITION No. 1906 of 2024
RANBIR SINGH RANGWALA AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. NAMRATA LADHANI
Appearance:
Shri Ankit Saxena- Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Sanjay Agrawal- Senior Advocate with Shri Vasu Waswani-
Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
By this common order M.P. No. 2039/2024 and M.P. No. 1906/2024 shall be decided.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of M.P. No. 2039/2024 shall be considered.
3. This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 07.03.2024, passed by 25th District Judge, Bhopal in Regular Civil Suit No.872A/2019 by which the settlement 2 M.P. No.2039/2024 and M.P. No.1906/2024 which was arrived at between the parties in the mediation proceedings has been rejected.
4. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of respondent No. 1, whereas; petitioner No. 3 is the brother of respondent No. 1. The dispute relates to Plot No. E-4/10, Arera Colony, Bhopal. The aforesaid property was granted on lease by Nazul Department to Shri Govind Singh Saluja by lease-deed dated 20.09.1968. By gift-deed dated 08.07.1976, Shri Govind Singh Saluja gifted the disputed property to his daughter i.e. petitioner No. 1. Respondent No. 1 was constantly pressurizing petitioner No. 1 to transfer the said plot and to fulfill her desire, petitioner No.1 agreed to execute a registered Will dated 16.08.2018. However, respondent No. 1 with an intention to fulfill her persuade, took respondent No. 1 to O/o of Registrar and obtained the digital signatures of petitioner No. 1 on certain documents. On 21.01.2019, petitioner No. 1 came to know that under the guise of Will, respondent No. 1 has deceitfully got the gift deed executed. Accordingly, the petitioners filed a Regular Civil Suit No.82A/2019 for declaration of title and permanent injunction but plaint was returned on account of pecuniary jurisdiction. Thereafter, in the year 2019, the petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No.872A/2019 thereby challenging the gift-deed dated 04.12.2018 as well as to declare that the disputed property belongs to petitioner No. 3 in terms of family settlement dated 30.10.2018.
5. Respondent No. 1 filed her written statement and also filed her counter claim on 09.12.2021, challenging the memorandum of family settlement dated 30.10.2018/02.11.2018 and the same was registered as Regular Civil Suit Appeal No. 103A/2021.
3 M.P. No.2039/2024 and M.P. No.1906/20246. The petitioners filed their written statement denying the averments made in the counter claim.
7. On 27.10.2022, issues were framed.
8. Thereafter with the consent of parties, the trial Court referred the matter for mediation before 14th District and Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal. On 04.05.2023, mediation was successful and the terms and conditions of the settlement were signed by the parties voluntarily. Accordingly, the Mediator forwarded the terms of settlement to the Referral Court for further proceedings. On 10.07.2023, respondent No. 1 filed an application and submitted that after the terms and conditions of the settlement were decided, the petitioners are now again raising dispute, therefore, she does not wish to proceed further as per the Mediation report. The petitioners also filed an application under Rule 26 of Madhya Pradesh Mediation Rules 2016 (in short 'Rules, 2016'). However, by the impugned order dated 07.03.2024, it was observed that in view of the subsequent events, no useful purpose would be served in passing an order on the Mediation report and accordingly, the application filed by the petitioners under Rule 26 of Rule 2016 and under Section 89 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. was rejected and the case was fixed for recording of evidence.
9. Challenging the order passed by Court below, it is submitted by Smt. Shobha Menon that in the light of Rules 12, 17, 18, 19, 25 and 26 of Rules, 2016, it is clear that if the parties have voluntarily entered into a settlement, then the Referral Court has to pass the decree in accordance with the settlement and respondent No. 1 could not have withdrawn herself from the settlement by filing an application on 10.07.2023. It is further submitted by Smt. Menon that the sanctity of the Arbitration must be respected and maintained and where the parties 4 M.P. No.2039/2024 and M.P. No.1906/2024 have voluntarily entered into a settlement, then the same has to be respected. It is further submitted that now the Mediation Act, 2023 (in short 'Act 2023') has come into force and Section 27 of Act 2023 provides that a mediated settlement agreement resulting from a mediation signed by the parties and authenticated by the mediator shall be final and binding on the parties and enforceable as per the provisions of Sub Section 2 of Section 27. By referring to Section 28 of Act, 2023, it is submitted that for challenging the mediated settlement agreement, the only grounds available to the parties are either fraud or corruption or impersonation or where the mediation was conducted in disputes or matters not fit for mediation under Section 6. It is submitted that since the settlement was voluntarily accepted by the parties which was duly authenticated by the mediator, therefore, the respondents cannot resile from the said settlement.
10. To buttress her contention, counsel for petitioners has also relied upon the judgment passed by High Court of Delhi At New Delhi in the case of Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. K.M. Tayal, decided on 23.02.2012 in CM (M) 1405/2009 & CM No. 17389/2009, the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Bakshi and Others Vs. Sonia Khosla (Dead) By Legal Representatives, reported in (2014) 15 SCC 80 and the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited and Another Vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited and Others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 24.
11. Shri Ankit Saxena, Advocate who is also appearing for petitioners Ranbir Singh Rangwala and Manvir Singh in M.P. No.1906/2024 arising out of order dated 07.03.2024, passed by the 25th District Judge, Bhopal, District Bhopal in RCSA No. 103-A/2021, submitted that if the 5 M.P. No.2039/2024 and M.P. No.1906/2024 settlement in mediation is not complied with, then the Court is required to hold such settlement agreement to be executed as a decree. It is further submitted by Shri Saxena that if a party resiles from the mediated settlement duly enter into by them and authenticated by the mediator, then the party resiling from such mediation must be saddled with heavy cost and by referring to judgment passed by this Court in the Case of Bilaal Hussain Vs. Smt. Jyoti Goyal and Others, decided on 27.09.2019 in R.P. No. 621/2019, it is submitted that the High Court had imposed a cost of Rs.50,000/- on such defaulting party. By referring to judgment passed in the case of Gimpex Private Limited Vs. Manoj Goel, reported in (2022) 11 SCC 705, it is submitted that the parties are bound by the terms of the agreement and any violation of the same may result in consequential action in civil and criminal law. It is further submitted that if the parties are permitted to resile from the mediated settlement, then it would completely destroy the sanctity attached to such solemn undertakings and would encourage the dishonesty and disrespect for the judicial process. It is further submitted that it would also undermine the majesty and authority of Courts, and instill doubts in the minds of the litigating public with regard to the efficacy of the judicial process and, in particular, with regard to the process of accepting undertakings by the Court and of the efficacy of the undertakings given to the Court by a party, and the acceptance thereof by the Court, as a part of settlement process. To support the aforesaid contention, the counsel for petitioners also relied upon the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Anurag Goel Vs. Chhavi Agrawal, decided in Cont.CAS (C) 1342/2022 & CM APPL. 52957/2022, CM APPL.15802/2023.
6 M.P. No.2039/2024 and M.P. No.1906/202412. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent. By referring to I.A. No. 11588/2024, an application for taking additional documents on record, it is submitted that in fact the petitioners themselves had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C. thereby claiming that they had already invested certain amounts in the name of respondent No. 1 and the said amount is liable to be adjusted against the total amount which has been agreed upon between the parties. It is submitted that thus, the petitioners themselves had resiled from the terms of settlement and, therefore, respondent No. 1 had rightly filed an application on 10.07.2023 pointing out that since the petitioners are still disputing the terms of settlement, therefore, she does not wish to go ahead with the settlement.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
14. By virtue of notification No. SO4384 (E), dated 9th of October, 2023 issued in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of Mediation Act, 2023 few Sections of Mediation Act, 2023 came into force with effect from 9th of October, 2023. The aforesaid notification reads as under:-
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Department of Legal Affairs) NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 9th October, 2023 S.O. 4384(E). In the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Mediation Act, 2023 (32 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints the 9th day of October, 2023 as the date on which the provision of the following sections of the said Act shall come into force, namely:-7 M.P. No.2039/2024 and M.P. No.1906/2024
(1) Section 1;
(2) Section 3;
(3) Section 26;
(4) Sections 31 to 38 (both inclusive); (5) Sections 45 to 47 (both inclusive); (6) Sections 50 to 54 (both inclusive); and (7) Sections 56 to 57 (both inclusive);
[F. No. A-60011/45/2023-ADR] Dr. RAJIV MANI, Addl. Secy.
15. Thus, it is clear that Sections 1, 3, 26, 31 to 38, 45 to 47, 50 to 54 and 56 to 57 came into force w.e.f. 9th day of October, 2023.
16. Smt. Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate counsel for petitioners in W.P. No. 2039/2024 had relied upon the provisions of Section 27 of Mediation Act, 2023. However, it is clear from the aforesaid notification that Section 27 of Mediation Act, 2023 has not come into force so far. However, there is another important aspect which cannot be lost sight of.
17. In the present case the mediated settlement took place on 04.05.2023, whereas; certain provisions of the Mediation Act, 2023 have come into force w.e.f. 9th of October, 2023. Furthermore, Mediation Act, 2023 received the assent of the President on 14th of September, 2023 and was published in Extraordinary Part-II -Section 1 of The Gazette of India on 15th of September, 2023. Thus, it is clear that the Mediation Act, 2023 was not in existence when the mediation settlement was declared successful i.e. 04.05.2023. Furthermore, Section 56 of Mediation Act, 2023 clarifies the entire situation.
18. Section 56 of Mediation Act, 2023 reads as under:-
8 M.P. No.2039/2024 and M.P. No.1906/2024"56. This Act shall not apply to, or in relation to, any mediation or conciliation commenced before the coming into force of this Act."
19. From plan reading of this Section, it is clear that Mediation Act has no retrospective operation and no mediation or conciliation which had already commenced before the coming into force of this Act will be governed by the provisions of Mediation Act, 2023. Therefore, reliance by the counsel for petitioners on Mediation Act, 2023 is misconceived.
20. It is the submission of counsel for petitioners that a sanctity is attached to the mediated settled agreement, therefore, the parties to the agreement should not be allowed to wriggle out of the same in a very casual manner thereby adversely affecting the procedure of mediation.
21. In the case of Afscons Infrastructure Limited and Another (supra) the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"38. The other four ADR processes are non- adjudicatory and the case does not go out of the stream of the court when a reference is made to such a non- adjudicatory ADR forum. The court retains its control and jurisdiction over the case, even when the matter is before the ADR forum. When a matter is settled through conciliation, the settlement agreement is enforceable as if it is a decree of the court having regard to Section 74 read with Section 30 of the AC Act. Similarly, when a settlement takes place before the Lok Adalat, the Lok Adalat award is also deemed to be a decree of the civil court and executable as such under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Though the settlement agreement in a conciliation or a settlement award of a Lok Adalat may not require the seal of approval of the court for its enforcement when they are made in a direct reference by parties without the intervention of court, the position will be different if they are made on a reference by a court in a pending suit/proceedings. As the court continues to retain 9 M.P. No.2039/2024 and M.P. No.1906/2024 control and jurisdiction over the cases which it refers to conciliations, or Lok Adalats, the settlement agreement in conciliation or the Lok Adalat award will have to be placed before the court for recording it and disposal in its terms.
39. Where the reference is to a neutral third party ("mediation" as defined above) on a court reference, though it will be deemed to be reference to Lok Adalat, as the court retains its control and jurisdiction over the matter, the mediation settlement will have to be placed before the court for recording the settlement and disposal. Where the matter is referred to another Judge and settlement is arrived at before him, such settlement agreement will also have to be placed before the court which referred the matter and that court will make a decree in terms of it.
40. Whenever such settlements reached before non- adjudicatory ADR fora are placed before the court, the court should apply the principles of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code and make a decree/order in terms of the settlement, in regard to the subject-matter of the suit/proceeding. In regard to matters/disputes which are not the subject-matter of the suit/proceedings, the court will have to direct that the settlement shall be governed by Section 74 of the AC Act (in respect of conciliation settlements) or Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in respect of settlements by a Lok Adalat or a mediator). Only then such settlements will be effective.
43. We may summarise the procedure to be adopted by a court under Section 89 of the Code as under:
(a) When the pleadings are complete, before framing issues, the court shall fix a preliminary hearing for appearance of parties. The court should acquaint itself with the facts of the case and the nature of the dispute between the parties.
(b) The court should first consider whether the case falls under any of the category of the cases which are required to be tried by courts and not fit to be referred to any ADR processes. If it finds that the case falls under any excluded category, it should record a brief 10 M.P. No.2039/2024 and M.P. No.1906/2024 order referring to the nature of the case and why it is not fit for reference to ADR processes. It will then proceed with the framing of issues and trial.
(c) In other cases (that is, in cases which can be referred to ADR processes) the court should explain the choice of five ADR processes to the parties to enable them to exercise their option.
(d) The court should first ascertain whether the parties are willing for arbitration. The court should inform the parties that arbitration is an adjudicatory process by a chosen private forum and reference to arbitration will permanently take the suit outside the ambit of the court. The parties should also be informed that the cost of arbitration will have to be borne by them. Only if both parties agree for arbitration, and also agree upon the arbitrator, the matter should be referred to arbitration.
(e) If the parties are not agreeable for arbitration, the court should ascertain whether the parties are agreeable for reference to conciliation which will be governed by the provisions of the AC Act. If all the parties agree for reference to conciliation and agree upon the conciliator(s), the court can refer the matter to conciliation in accordance with Section 64 of the AC Act.
(f) If the parties are not agreeable for arbitration and conciliation, which is likely to happen in most of the cases for want of consensus, the court should, keeping in view the preferences/options of parties, refer the matter to any one of the other three ADR processes: (a) Lok Adalat; (b) mediation by a neutral third-party facilitator or mediator; and (c) a judicial settlement, where a Judge assists the parties to arrive at a settlement.
(g) If the case is simple which may be completed in a single sitting, or cases relating to a matter where the legal principles are clearly settled and there is no personal animosity between the parties (as in the case of motor accident claims), the court may refer the matter to Lok Adalat. In case where the questions are complicated or cases which may require several rounds 11 M.P. No.2039/2024 and M.P. No.1906/2024 of negotiations, the court may refer the matter to mediation. Where the facility of mediation is not available or where the parties opt for the guidance of a Judge to arrive at a settlement, the court may refer the matter to another Judge for attempting settlement.
(h) If the reference to the ADR process fails, on receipt of the report of the ADR forum, the court shall proceed with hearing of the suit. If there is a settlement, the court shall examine the settlement and make a decree in terms of it, keeping the principles of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code in mind.
(i) If the settlement includes disputes which are not the subject-matter of the suit, the court may direct that the same will be governed by Section 74 of the AC Act (if it is a conciliation settlement) or Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (if it is a settlement by a Lok Adalat or by mediation which is a deemed Lok Adalat). If the settlement is through mediation and it relates not only to disputes which are the subject-matter of the suit, but also other disputes involving persons other than the parties to the suit, the court may adopt the principle underlying Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code. This will be necessary as many settlement agreements deal with not only the disputes which are the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding in which the reference is made, but also other disputes which are not the subject-matter of the suit.
(j) If any term of the settlement is ex facie illegal or unenforceable, the court should draw the attention of parties thereto to avoid further litigations and disputes about executability.
22. From the plain reading of Paragraph 43(h), it is clear that where there is a settlement, the court has to examine the settlement and make a decree in terms of it, then it has to keep the principles of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code in mind. Therefore, before proceeding further, this Court would like to consider the provisions of M.P. Mediation Rules, 2016.
23. Rules 12, 17, 18, 19, 25 and 26 of Rules, 2016 reads as under:-
12 M.P. No.2039/2024 and M.P. No.1906/202412. Mediation Process.-
(1) All civil and criminal compoundable matters, may be referred to mediation during the course of litigation, by the Court.
(2) The mediation process will comprise of reference as well as the steps taken by the mediator to facilitate the settlement of a referred matter by following the structure usually followed, including but not limited to introduction and opening statement, joint session, separate sessions(s) and closing.
(3) Failure to arrive at a settlement would not preclude the Court from making fresh reference of the matter for mediation.
(4) In case of failure of resolution of the referred dispute, the Mediator shall inform the Mediation Centre, by a report and the Co-coordinator of the Mediation Centre shall inform regarding the same to the Court.
17. Role of Mediator.-
The mediators shall attempt to facilitate voluntary resolution of the dispute(s) by the parties. He shall assist them in understanding the problems, identifying the underlying issues, reducing misunderstandings, generating the options and developing option which are mutually acceptable to both the parties.
18. Parties alone responsible for taking decision.-
The parties shall be made to understand that the mediator only facilitates in arriving at a decision to resolve dispute(s) and that he will not and cannot impose any settlement nor does the mediator give any assurance that the mediation will result in a settlement. The mediator shall not impose any decision on the parties.
19.Time limit for completion of mediation.-
On the expiry of Ninety days from the date fixed for the first appearance of the parties before the mediator, the mediation shall stand terminated, unless the Court, which referred the matter, either suo moto, or upon request by any of the parties, and upon hearing all the parties, is of the view that extension of time is 13 M.P. No.2039/2024 and M.P. No.1906/2024 necessary or may be useful; but such extension shall not be beyond a further period of thirty days.
25. Settlement agreement.-
(1) Where an agreement is reached between the parties with regard to all the issues in the suit or proceeding or some of the issues, the same shall be reduced to writing and signed by the parties or their constituted attorney. If any counsel has represented the parties, the mediator may obtain his signature on the settlement agreement.
(2) The agreement of the parties so signed shall be submitted to the Coordinator, Mediation Centre, who shall, with a covering letter signed by him forward the same to the Court in which the suit or proceeding is pending.
(3) Where no agreement is arrived at between the parties or where the mediator is of the view that no settlement is possible, he shall report the same in writing to the Coordinator, Mediation Centre, who shall, with a covering letter signed by him forward the same to the Court in which the suit or proceeding is pending.
26. Court to record settlement and pass decree-
(1) On receipt of settlement agreement, if the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled their disputes voluntarily, the Court may pass appropriate order/decree on the basis of settlement, if the same is not found collusive/illegal/unworkable. However, if the settlement disposed of only certain issues arising in the matter, the Court may record settlement in respect of the issues settled in the mediation and may proceed to decide other issue which are not settled.
(2) Settlement between the parties shall be final in respect of the proceedings pending before the Court.
24. From the above mentioned Rules, it is clear that where an agreement is reached between the parties, the same shall be reduced to writing and signed by the parties or their constituted attorney and the 14 M.P. No.2039/2024 and M.P. No.1906/2024 said agreement so signed by the party shall be submitted to the coordinator mediator centre who shall, with a covering letter signed by him, forward the same to the Court, in which the suit is pending. Rule 26 make it mandatory on the part of the Court to record its satisfaction that the parties have settled their disputes voluntarily and the Court may pass appropriate order/decree on the basis of settlement, if the same is not found collusive/illegal/unworkable. If the settlement is only in respect of certain issues arising in the matter, then the Court after recording the settlement in respect of the issues settled in the mediation, may proceed further to decide other issues which were not settled. Rule 26(2) of Rule, 2016 provides that settlement between the parties, shall be final in respect of proceedings pending before the Court.
25. Thus, it is clear from the provisions of Rule, 2016 that signing of a mediation settlement by the parties, which is dully authenticated by the mediator will not result in a final award but it will be subject to final decision by the Court as per the provisions of Rule, 26 of Rule, 2016.
26. Although the counsel for petitioners tried to submit that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the award passed by the Arbitrator is final and is executable if it is not challenged under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act but the aforementioned submissions cannot be accepted for the simple reason that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, there is no provision for approval of Arbitral Award by the Court. If any of the party is aggrieved by the Arbitral Award, then it has no option but to assail the same under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. However, as already pointed out that the settlement arrived at between the parties in the mediation proceedings are not final and they are subject to approval by the Court under Rule 26 of Rule, 2016.
15 M.P. No.2039/2024 and M.P. No.1906/202427. The important aspect is that the Rule 26 of Rules, 2016 also makes it obligatory on the part of the referral Court that it should record its satisfaction with regard to the voluntariness of the parties. Therefore, apart from verifying the fact as to whether the settlement is collusive/illegal/unworkable or not, the referral Court is also under obligation to decide the voluntariness of the parties. This aspect gives a wide meaning to Rule 26 of Rule, 2016. If a party successfully establishes before the Court that the settlement which was arrived at between the parties in a mediation was not voluntary, then the referral Court may refuse to act upon such settlement.
28. Although, counsel for the petitioners had also given an example of an award passed by the Lok Adalat to submit that the award passed by the Lok Adalat is final and therefore, the settlement arrived at between the parties under Rule, 2016 is also final, but the same cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the Award passed by Lok Adalat is not subject to any further approval, whereas; the settlement arrived at between the parties in the mediation is subject to approval by the referral Court under Rule 26 of Rules, 2016. Thus, mere settlement of dispute in a mediation by itself will not become executable unless and until it is made a decree of the Court. However, at the same time, one thing is clear that the parties cannot be allowed to resile in a very casual manner thereby making the mediation proceedings a mockery. In order to get away from the mediation settlement, the parties must make out a very strong case to claim that the settlement arrived at between the parties in the mediation proceedings should not be made a rule of law. Merely because after entering into a settlement if the party gives a second thought and later on realizes that the settlement signed before the mediator is not more favourable to him/her, then the same cannot be a 16 M.P. No.2039/2024 and M.P. No.1906/2024 ground to claim that settlement was not voluntarily.
29. Now the facts of this case shall be considered in the light of provision of Rules, 2016.
30. As already pointed out, the mediation settlement agreement was signed on 04/05/2023 which reads as under:-
le{k e/;LFkrk&Jherh r`fIr ik.Ms;] e/;LFk@pkSngosa ftyk ,oa vij l= U;k;k/kh'k] Hkksiky i{kdkj dz-&01 Jherh dey j.kohj flag o vU; -------------- oknh fo#) i{kdkj d-&02 Jherh uezrk y/kkuh o vU; ------------ çfroknh lqyg&vuqca/k fnukafdr& 04@5@23 mifLFkfr& i{kdkj dzekad 01 Jherh dey j.kohj flag o vU; dh vksj ls Jh jes'k 'kekZ vf/koäkA i{kdkj dekad 02 Jherh uezrk y/kkuh o vU; dh vksj ls Jh ohå,på olokuh vf/koäkA orZeku çdj.k vkjlh,l dzekad 872,@2019 U;k;ky; Jh ;qxy j?kqoa'kh] iPphloas ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] Hkksiky ls e/;LFkrk gsrq jsQj fd;k x;k gSA çdj.k ds laf{kIr rF;& çdj.k ?kks"k.kk ,oa LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds lac/a k esa lafLFkr gqvk gSA i{kdkjksa ls ohfM;ks dkQsaflax ds ek/;e ls ,oa tks i{kdkj mifLFkr gS muls çR;{k :i ls i`Fkd&i`Fkd ,oa la;qä l=ksa ds ek/;e ls mifLFkr gksus ds ifj.kkeLo:i fuEu 'krksaZ ds v/khu viuk ekeyk LosPNîk ijLij lgefr ls lqyg djuk çdV fd;k gS %& 1 mHk; i{k ds e/; fu"ikfnr iath;u nku i= fnukad 04-12-2018 dks fujad o 'kwU; ekuk tkos vkSj bldh tkudkjh iath;u foHkkx dks Hkh tkjh dh tkosAa 2- çfroknh dzekad&1 ;g Lohdkj djrh gS fd mlus bl nkui= fnukad 0412-2018 ds vk/kkj ij dksbZ vuqca/k nkui= ;k ca/kd ;k vU; gLrkUrj.k vkfn ugh fd;k gS vkSj ;g lEifÙk iwjh rjg ls Hkkjeqä gSA 3- oknhx.k bl fujLrh ds ,ot esa çfroknh dzekad 1 dks ikap djksM+ dh jkf'k layXu lgefr i= ds vuqlkj çnku djsx a s vkSj bl jkf'k dh ,ot esa çfroknh dzekad 1 bl çdj.k esa fookfnr lEifÙk lfgr çfroknh dzekad 1 }kjk çLrqr çdj.k dzekad 103,@2021 esa okn i= esa pj.k dzekad 3 esa mYysf[kr lEifÙk;ksa ij dksbZ vf/kdkj 17 M.P. No.2039/2024 and M.P. No.1906/2024 ;k n[ky ;k fgr çfroknh dzekad 1 ;k mlds fdlh mÙkjkf/kdkjh ;k çfrfuf/k dks çkIr ugha gksxk bl laca/k esa la;qä fMdzh çdj.k dzekad 103,@2021 o orZeku çdj.k dzekad 872,@2019 esa ikfjr dh tkosxhA 4- ;g fd oknhx.k o çfroknh dzekad 1 ds e/; orZeku esa çpfyr o yfEcr leLr fof/kd çdj.k o jktLo çdj.k lfgr vkijkf/kd çdj.k mHk; i{kksa ds }kjk bl le>kSrk i= ds v/khu okfil fy;k tkosxk ;k lekIr djok;k tkosxkA i{kdkj dekad&1 i{kdkj dekad&2 ¼Jherh dey j.kohj flag o vU;½ ¼Jherh ue`rk y/kkuh o vU;½ vf/koäk dk uke&Jh jes'k 'kekZ vf/koäk dk uke&Jh ohå,på oklokuh vf/koäk ds gLrkå i{kdkj dzekad&1 o 2 ds vf/koäk Jh jes'k 'kekZ ,oa vf/koäk Jh ohå,på oklokuh dk bl iwjh e/;LFkrk dk;Zokgh ds lQy ;ksxnku esa egRoiw.kZ Hkwfedk jgh gSA i{kdkjksa us mijksä leLr 'krksZa dks i<+dj le>dj LosPN;k viuh lgefr Lo:i gLrk{kj fd;sA ¼Jherh r`fIr ik.Ms;½ pkSngosa ftyk ,oa vij l= U;k;k/kh'k Hkksiky ¼e-ç-½ izfrfyfi%& 1- U;k;ky;&iPphlosa ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] Hkksiky dh vksj lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq çsf"krA 2- lfpo ftyk fof/kd lsok çkf/kdj.k ¼e/;LFkrk dsUæ½ Hkksiky] dh vksj e; e/;LFkrk dk;Zokgh dh lEiw.kZ i=koyh ¼ewyr%½ lfgr lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq çsf"krA 3- i{kdkj dzekad&1 Jherh dey j.kohj flag o vU; gsrqA 4- i{kdkj dekad&2 Jherh uezrk y/kkuh o vU; gsrqA ¼Jhirh r`fIr ik.Ms;½ pkSngosa ftyk ,oa vij l= U;k;k/kh'k Hkksiky ¼e-ç-½
31. Thereafter on 10.07.2023, respondent No.1 filed an application praying for further proceedings in the Civil Suit on the ground that the petitioners after entering into a mediation agreement have started creating further dispute, as a result thereof, now there is no possibility of 18 M.P. No.2039/2024 and M.P. No.1906/2024 any settlement in the matter. The application filed by respondent No.1 is reproduced as under:-
U;k;ky; Jheku~ iPphl vij ftyk vk- egksn;
Hkksiky
R.T. 872/19
dey oknh
fo:)
j.kfu, çfroknh
vkosnu i= varxZr /kkjk 151 O; ç- la- oknh dh vksj ls fuEukuqlkj fuosnu gS%& 1- ;g fd mä çdj.k vkt fnukad dks ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k fefM,s'ku fjiksVZ gsrq fu;r gSA 2- ;g fd oknh ,oa çfroknh ds e/; lqyg okrkZ gsrq ¼fefM,s'ku gsrq çdj.k ekuuh; r`fIr ik.Ms esMe ds le{k oknh ,oa çfroknh mifLFkr gq, ,oa çdj.k esa oknh ,oa çfroknh e/; fefM,s'ku lQy jgkA ysfdu fdUgha dkj.kksa ls vc oknh ,oa çfroknh ds e/; fookn gks tkus dkj.k mDr izdj.k çdj.k esa le>kSrs dh dksbZ lEcuk ugh gS ftl dkj.k oknh mDr çdj.k esa vc le>kSrs dh dk;Zokgh ugha pkgrk gSA ,oa çdj.k esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds ek/;e ls vfxze dk;Zokgh djkuk pkgrk gSA vr% ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fuosnu gS fd mä vkosnu i= Lohdkj izdj.k esa vfxze dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus ds vkns'k ikfjr djus dh --ik fd tkos tkss U;k;ksfpr gksxkA Hkksiky oknh }kjk fnukad vf/koDrk 10@7@2023
32. On 10.07.2023, an order was passed by the Trial Court and without considering the application filed by respondent No.1 and without passing an order under Rule 26 of Rules, 2016 fixed the case for recording of plaintiff's evidence. It is made clear that order dated 10.07.2023 was never challenged by petitioners and even in the present petition also, order dated 10.07.2023 has not been challenged.
33. Respondent No.1 has filed I.A. No.11588/2024, an application for taking additional documents on record. Along with this application, an application filed by petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC before the 19 M.P. No.2039/2024 and M.P. No.1906/2024 Trial Court on 18.08.2023 has been filed which reads as under:-
U;k;ky; Jheku 25osa ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] Hkksiky eåizå çådå vkjålhå,lå 872,@19 Jhefr dey j.kohj flag o vU; oknhx.k fo:) Jhefr ue`rk y/kkuh o vU; çfroknhx.k vkosnu i= vUrZxr vksn'k 7 fu;e 14 O;ogkj çfØ;k lafgrk oknh dh vkSj ls fuosnu gS %& 1- ;g fd oknh dze‚ad 3 us viuh tekiwath es ls çfroknh dzekad 1 ds uke ls fuEukuqlkj ,QåMhå o bUosLVesUV dj j[kk gS ftldk fooj.k o ewy ,QåMhå bl vkosnu i= ds lkFk çLrqr dh tk jgh gS& 1 ,QåMhå cSad v‚Q bf.M;k¡ ifjiDork fnå 22@12@2023 jkf'k 4]20]515@& 2 ,QåMhå cSad v‚Q bf.M;kWa ifjiDork fnå 30@09@2023 jkf'k 16]02]631@& 3 ihåihå,Q esP;ksj osY;w 35]59]886@& 4 lsfoax ,dkam.V cSad v‚Q bf.M;kWa jkf'k 2]82]000@& ftldh ewy çfr;kWa layXu dh tk jgh gSA 2- ;g fd çdj.k es oknh o çfroknh x.k ds e/; vkilh le>kSrk ukek fu"ikfnr fd;k tkuk r; fd;k x;k Fkk ftldk MkZQV oknhx.k us çfroknh dks cuk dj is'k fd;k Fkk ftles bl dqy le>kSrk jkf'k esa bl jkf'k dks of.kZr fd;k x;k Fkk mijkSä M‚zQV dh çfr layXu dh tk jgh gSA 3 ;g fd çdj.k esa layXu dh tk jgh ewy çfr;kS dks vfHkys[k esa xzkg;
fd;k tkuk vfrvko';d gSA vr% ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fuosnu gS fd lwph vuqlkj nLrkostks dks vfHkys[k esa xzkg; fd;s tkus ds mfpr vkns'k ikfjr fd;s tkos tks fd U;k;ksfpr gksxk A Hkksiky fnu‚d 18@08@2023 oknh x.k }kjk vf/koDrk
34. Along with this application, certain drafts which were not signed by the parties are also annexed. It is submitted by counsel for respondent No.1 that the application filed by petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was allowed and documents have been taken on record.
20 M.P. No.2039/2024 and M.P. No.1906/202435. It appears that thereafter the petitioners filed an application under Rule 26 of Rules, 2016 to draw a decree in accordance with the settlement arrived at in the mediation and by the impugned order dated 07.03.2024 the application filed under Rule 26 of Rules, 2016 has been rejected.
36. If the facts and circumstances of the case are considered, then it is clear that it was not the respondent No.1 who resiled from the settlement agreement but it was the petitioners who resiled from the said settlement agreement and started creating further disputes.
37. From the application filed by respondent No.1 under Section 151 of CPC, it is specifically clear that respondent No.1 had claimed that mediation was successful but later on, a dispute has arisen between the petitioners as well as defendant No.1/ respondent No.1, therefore now there is no possibility of amicable settlement and thus, she wanted further proceedings in the suit. This application was filed on 10.07.2023 and by order dated 10.07.2023, the Trial Court without deciding the question in the light of Rule 26 of Rules, 2016 fixed the case for recording of plaintiff's/petitioners evidence on 18.08.2023. On 18.08.2023, petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC which has already been reproduced.
38. Thus, it is clear that the contention raised by respondent No.1 in her application filed under Section 151 CPC that although the settlement was successful but on account of certain dispute which has arisen between petitioners and respondent No.1, now the settlement is not possible, appears to be correct.
39. In the settlement agreement, there was no whisper that amount of Rupees Five Crorers which was agreed upon by the parties and was payable by the petitioners to respondent No.1 would also include any 21 M.P. No.2039/2024 and M.P. No.1906/2024 investment already made by them in the name of respondent No.1 but by filing an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, petitioners themselves tried to modify the terms of settlement by claiming that certain investments were made by petitioners which are to be adjusted.
40. So far as the draft affidavits filed by petitioners along with the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC is concerned, the same cannot be made binding on respondent No.1 for the simple reason that it is an unsigned affidavit and similarly, so far as the draft filed by petitioners along with their application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC containing certain conditions is also an unsigned document and it is submitted by counsel for petitioners that the petitioners cannot be made bound by the said draft.
41. Without entering into any controversy as to whether the draft prepared and filed by the petitioners themselves would be binding on petitioners or not, it is suffice to mention here that once the petitioners had tried to modify the terms of the settlement, then it can be safely held that it was the petitioners who had resiled from the settlement agreement executed between the parties in the mediation proceedings.
42. Under these circumstances, when the petitioners themselves had decided not to respect the settlement agreement, then they cannot make a complaint that respondent No.1 is not maintaining the sanctity of settlement agreement. In fact it is the petitioners who themselves have violated the terms and conditions of settlement agreement.
43. It is also not out of place to mention here that petitioners never withdrew their application which was filed under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. on 18.08.2023, therefore, by maintaining both the applications i.e. an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC as well as application under Rule 26 of Rules, 2016, petitioners cannot claim that the decree 22 M.P. No.2039/2024 and M.P. No.1906/2024 should be passed in accordance with the settlement agreement.
44. Under these circumstances, the petitioners by their conduct are now estopped from claiming that settlement agreement arrived at between the parties on 04.05.2023 should be made a rule of law.
45. Shri Ankit Saxena, Counsel for petitioners in M.P. No.1906/2024 had also claimed that the party who ultimately resiles from the settlement agreement should be saddled with heavy cost and should be made liable for civil and criminal prosecution.
46. Since this Court has come to the conclusion that it is the petitioners who have resiled from the settlement agreement, therefore M.P. No.2039/2024 is dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- as well as M.P. No.1906/2024 is also dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioners before the Registry of this Court within a period of one month from today, failing which Registrar General shall not only initiate proceedings for recovery of cost but shall also register a case for contempt of Court.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE AL Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Date: 2024.08.06 14:47:21 +05'30'