Delhi High Court - Orders
Leena Paliwal vs Neetu Gupta & Anr on 2 June, 2022
Author: Amit Bansal
Bench: Amit Bansal
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 331/2022
LEENA PALIWAL ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Lalit Gupta with Mr. Gaurav
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
NEETU GUPTA & ANR. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Himansh Yadav, Advocate for D-
1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 02.06.2022 I.A. 9594/2022 (of the defendant no.1 u/O-XXXII R-7 of CPC)
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the defendant no.1 under Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for seeking leave to enter into a compromise on behalf of the defendant no.2, who is a minor, in the present suit.
2. The defendant no.1 is the biological mother of the defendant no.2 and she has already been appointed as a guardian of the defendant no.2 vide order dated 31st May, 2022, to defend the interest of the defendant no.2 in the present suit
3. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and the defendant no.1 is granted leave to enter into a compromise on behalf of the defendant no.2.
4. Consequently, the defendant no.1 is permitted to execute and get the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL CS(OS) 331/2022 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:03.06.2022 19:05:23 requisite Sale Deed registered in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the 25% undivided share in the built-up property/ plot No. B3, bearing No. 37, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054, on behalf of the minor defendant no.2.
5. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 9595/2022 (u/O-XXIII R-3 of CPC)
6. The present application has been jointly filed on behalf of the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, to record the compromise entered into between the parties. The application is supported by the affidavits of the plaintiff and the defendants.
7. The terms of the Settlement are provided in paragraph 4 of the application.
8. I have examined the terms of the Settlement and do not find anything unlawful therein.
9. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the Settlement.
10. Accordingly, the suit along with pending applications stands disposed of.
11. Since the suit has been settled between the parties within four days of its institution, the plaintiff seeks exemption from the payment of Court Fees.
12. Vide order dated 31st May, 2022, the plaintiff was given two weeks time to pay the court fees.
13. In view of the observations of the Supreme Court in the judgment of High Court of Judicature at Madras, Represented by its Registrar General v. M.C. Subramaniam and Ors., (2021) 3 SCC 560, followed by this Court in Western Infrabuild Products LLP v. Western Steel India and Ors., 2022 (89) PTC 407 (Del), the plaintiff is entitled to refund of the entire court fees, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL CS(OS) 331/2022 Page 2 of 3 Signing Date:03.06.2022 19:05:23 if paid. Since the court fees is yet to be paid in the present suit, the plaintiff is granted exemption from the payment of the court fees.
14. Copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for the plaintiff under the signatures of the Court Master.
AMIT BANSAL, J.
JUNE 2, 2022/at Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL CS(OS) 331/2022 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:03.06.2022 19:05:23