Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The plaintiff Nos 1 and 2 have filed this application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. The application is not signed by other parties, rather opposed by them. This order shall decide whether the suit can be decreed as sought by plaintiff Nos 1 and 2.

2. The plaintiffs have instituted the present suit for restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from estate bearing Municipal No. 124, Janpath, New Delhi and the building comprising of Hotel Imperial constructed thereon and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the said property and for declaration and other reliefs relating to running of hotel Imperial, New Delhi. The suit has been contested vigorously by the defendants. On 18th July, 2007, while hearing arguments on various pending applications, this Court gave the parties a chance of mediation and directed that counsel for both the parties shall hold a meeting and explore the possibility of mediation. Thereafter, the proceedings were adjourned from time to time on statement that conciliation attempts were being made. Thereafter, the matter was ordered to be taken in Chamber. On 17th November, 2007 the following order was passed:

Parties present in person in my Chamber.

The parties are litigating in this Suit. The efforts are being made for compromise and resolving all disputes between parties. Parties were counseled for considerable time today in the Chamber Meeting. Parties have ultimately agreed to sort out all their disputes. It is basically agreed that the defendants, who are managing the hotel presently, shall pay a sum of Rs 15 crore to Smt Gobinder Kaur and Rs 15 crore to Inderdev Singh for Smt Surender Kaur, legal heir of Late Smt Gyan Kaur and Rs 30 crore to Smt Surender Kaur, legal heir of Late Smt Gyan Kaur and Rs 30 crore to Sh Surender Singh Sibia on behalf of himself and on behalf of his two children.

After payment of this amount, as agreed between the parties, all claims of recipients in respect of the property in the hotel shares account shall stand settled and the recipients of the amount shall lay no further claim on the hotel business or the hotel property. No further accounting shall be got done and this will be considered as a final figure of the settlement. The details of the agreement shall be prepared by the parties in consultation with each other, which also shall give modalities of payment of this amount.

The amount will be payable within a period of two years from today in a equal quarterly installments. The details of the agreement shall be prepared by the parties in consultation with each other, their Chartered Accountants and Advocates. No interest shall be payable for a period of 2 years. However, if the payment is delayed beyond a period of two years, the interest will be payable on the unpaid amount for the delayed period @ 10% per annum. The parties shall file draft agreement in the Court within a period of two weeks from today.

List this matter now on 27th November, 2007 However, on the next date i.e., 27th November, 2007, the following order was passed:

Present: Mr Riju Raj Jamwal, Advocate for plaintiffs No. 2 and 3.

CS (OS) No. 1806/1999

At request, list this matter for arguments on 14th December, 2007.

3. Thereafter, an application being IA. No. 14432/2007 was filed by the defendant No. 2 under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC for amendment of the order dated 17th November, 2007 and for necessary directions. It was, inter alia, stated in the said application that the defendant No. 2 was willing to go ahead with the settlement only to buy peace and was ready to make the payment only if there was no tax liability on the defendant No. 2 or on the partnership firm M/s Akoi Saab; it was further stated in the application that the chartered accountants and tax advisor of the defendant No. 2 had advised that the consequence of making the payment as recorded in the order dated 17th November, 2007 would be far reaching a