The judgment establishes the importance of upholding settlements made through mediation and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, in line with the legislative intention to encourage settlement of disputes outside the court.

( 1 ) THE respondent herein had filed suit for possession and mesne profits. The relief clause contains certain other prayers as well, which includes decree of permanent injunction seeking restraint against the defendants (appellants herein) from transferring, selling, alienating or otherwise parting with possession of the premises,. e. Shop No. 3, Pocket D-12, Property No. 231/1, sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi and not to interfere, in any manner, with peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the premises shown red in the site plan annexed. With the consent of the parties, the matter was referred to mediation. Before the mediation the parties settled the matter and the terms on which the matter was settled were recorded in the proceedings dated 26. 7. 2006 by the judge/mediator Shri Dharmesh Sharma. In this, following terms were agreed:-

"1. It is agreed that defendant No. 1 shall pay total sum of Rs. 5 Lacs to the plaintiff on or before 10th of November, 2006 by way of Pay Order or Bank draft; and 2. It is agreed by the Plaintiff that on payment of the said sum to him on or before 10th of November, 2006, he shall withdraw his complaint against defendant No. 1 u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act subjudice before Shri bhupesh Kumar, Ld. MM, Rohini, Delhi; and 3. It is also agreed by the plaintiff that on payment of the said sum, he shall also move an application before the Ld. M. M. , for compounding or withdrawal of criminal case against defendant No. 1 u/s 448/380 IPC and he shall not pursue the same. 4. It is also agreed by the defendant No. 1 that in the event of his failure to pay the agreed amount, he shall be liable to pay a sum of rs. 7,50,000/- to the plaintiff with interest, and 5. It is agreed that the plaintiff shall apply to the court concerned where the suit for possession is pending for a direction to the Controller of stamps for refund of court fee of Rs. 4,031/- and 6. It is also agreed that parties shall bear their own cost. "

( 2 ) IT is clear from the above that the appellants agreed to pay a sum of rs. 5 Lakhs to the respondent on or before 10. 11. 2006 and it was also agreed that if this amount is not paid by the agreed date, the liability of the appellants shall be Rs. 7,50,000/- with interest. Thereafter, the parties appeared before the learned trial court where the suit was pending and made statement to the effect that they had compromised the dispute with the intervention of Mediation centre, Tis Hazari, Delh. The statement of both the parties were recorded pursuant whereto compromise decree dated 8. 8. 2006 was passed in favour of the respondent herein.

( 3 ) THE appellant herein did not make the payment of Rs. 5 Lakhs as agreed by 10. 11. 2006. Instead, he moved application on 10. 11. 2006 seeking extension of time for payment of the settled amount. Thereafter, however, he turned turtle and moved another application for withdrawal of the aforesaid application for extension of time and instead made prayer for cancellation of the settlement decree. This application was dismissed by the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 30. 4. 2007 and challenging the said order, present appeal is filed.

( 4 ) IN nutshell, the prayer of the appellant herein is that the decree dated 8. 8. 2006 be set aside. This is clearly impermissible in law. From the facts noted above, it is clear that parties settled the matter before the mediator on the terms reproduced above, which were duly signed by both the parties. Not only that, thereafter they appeared before the trial court and reiterated their statements on oath, which were recorded by the learned trial court and duly signed by the appellant. Decree passed is, therefore, on the basis of settlement between the parties. There is no ground to resile from this statement. If settlement is before the Mediation, one cannot back out. Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure was amended by the Legislature in the year 2002 providing alternative mechan