A power of attorney given for consideration continues even after the death of the principal, and technical grounds such as a party's death before a consent order do not justify setting aside a settlement agreement.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J (Oral):

CM No.19063/2014 (U/o 23 Rule 3 CPC for recalling of the order dated 18.2.2014) in RSA No.171/2011

1. There are certain sections of litigants for whom a legal binding compromise agreement entered into before the Court, is not a deterrence for seeking to recall the consent order/agreement by saying in almost a blasé manner that convenience supported by dishonesty is very much a general thing in this kalyug. The present application which has been filed is symptomatic of these types of litigants. I am using very strong words and deliberately so, and which are intended to send a strong message that courts of law have to be accessed for the purpose of justice and where there is if not a strong case at least some reasonable case, but access to justice does not mean entitlement to indulge in gross abuse of the process of the law. Before reproducing the consent order, disposing of as many as five Regular Second Appeals (RSAs) filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and which brought to an end litigation of three decades, it is required to be noted that the consent order dated 18.2.2014 recording the agreement between the parties was passed after the counsels were heard on merits in the RSAs. In fact, the earlier order dated 29.1.2014 specifically records that the case was adjourned at the joint request of the parties, who wanted to consider settlement out of court.

2. The consent order recording the agreement between the parties dated 18.2.2014 is a long order but I have no option but to reproduce the same in its entirety and the same is therefore reproduced as under:-

“1. Counsel for the parties were heard with respect to their respective stands on merits. I am happy to note that counsels have taken a pragmatic stand and have advised their clients to arrive at a settlement in terms of the present consent order so that this family litigation which is now pending for about three decades will come to an end. This court place on record the appreciation for the stand which is taken by the parties who have been ably assisted by their counsels. The present appeals are accordingly disposed of in terms of the following consent order:-

(i) The property bearing no.I-13, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi-14 will be demolished and rebuilt at the cost of Sh. Deen Dayal Sood or his nominee. The new construction will comprise of basement (as permissible), stilt parking, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor. There will be maximum coverage/construction as per applicable laws including municipal laws. Sh. Anshumalee Sood and Smt. Sudershana Kumari Blagon will be entitled to have parking of one car space in the stilt parking which will be provided in the newly built up property. All the floors will have same type and quality of fittings and fixtures.

(ii) Smt. Sudarshana Kumari Blagan will get the ground floor of the property to be newly constructed. Smt. Sudershana Kumari Blagan will be entitled to a rental per month of a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month from Din Dayal Sood/nominee for the period of two and half years from today during which new construction will be made on the property and the possession of the newly built up property will be handed over to Smt. Sudershana Kumari Blagan. In case, for any reason construction of the new property cannot be completed within a period of two and half years, thereafter the amount which would be payable to Smt. Sudarshana Kumari Blagan will be a figure of more than Rs.40,000/- per month and which amount/figure would be commonly decided by Smt. Sudarshana Kumar Blagan, and Mr. Din Dayal Sood or his nominee. The object of fixing of a fresh figure of rental per month will be to ensure a fair and reasonable rental amount to be available to Smt. Sudarshana Kumari Blagan equivalent to the property she is occupying if for reasons beyond control the new construction cannot be completed within a period of two and half years and she cannot be gi