Delhi High Court
Smt. Vidya Devi vs Sh. Deep Chand And Ors. on 15 July, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) No.28/2010
% 15th July , 2014
SMT. VIDYA DEVI ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manu Nayar, Advocate.
VERSUS
SH. DEEP CHAND AND ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This petition impugns the order of the trial Court dated 28.10.2009 declining the prayer of the petitioner, who is plaintiff in one suit and defendant in a connected suit, for passing of a consent decree in view of the alleged agreed settlement before the Mediation Centre of the district court on 21.3.2007.
2. No doubt, there was an agreed settlement on 21.3.2007, but, the impugned order shows that there was passed a subsequent order by the learned Mediator dated 10.4.2007 by which the matter was referred to the Court for judicial adjudication inasmuch as there was a factual mistake in C.M.(M) No.28/2010 Page 1 of 2 the settlement agreement dated 21.3.2007 with respect to width of the passage which was in dispute between the parties. Therefore, the settlement agreement dated 21.3.2007 was superseded by the joint stand of the parties as recorded by the learned Mediator in the subsequent order dated 10.4.2007 for referring the disputes to the court for adjudication.
3. I asked the counsel for the petitioner to show me the order dated 10.4.2007, and which is the most important document for deciding the issue of whether or not finality was achieved to the settlement agreement dated 21.3.2007, but, the counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has not filed before this Court the subsequent order of the Mediator dated 10.4.2007. Obviously, this order is not filed because both the parties would have reviewed the position as per the settlement agreement dated 21.3.2007 and both the parties would have stated in the order of the Mediator 10.4.2007 that the matter be again sent to the Court for adjudication.
4. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order which refused to dispose of the suit as compromised in terms of the settlement agreement. The petition is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
JULY 11, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
C.M.(M) No.28/2010 Page 2 of 2