S. Ravindra Bhat, J.:--

1. This is an appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge dismissing an application of the appellant (“the plaintiff”) seeking the setting aside of a compromise decree.

2. The plaintiff had sued the first respondent, M/s Hotel Marina (“Marina”), a partnership firm of which she and respondents 2-9 (the other defendants) were members. The suit claimed the dissolution of the firm, a decree of rendition of accounts, and a direction to assess and realize the value of all common assets in order to pay the amount due to the plaintiff. The plaint alleged that Marina was managed by the eighth respondent, the plaintiff’s father in law, and another partner, and that she had executed a power of attorney in favour of eighth respondent. Due to apprehensions regarding its misuse and the manner in which the firm was being managed, the plaintiff revoked the power of attorney on 5th February, 2001, and filed the suit for dissolution. By an order dated 14-12-2005, the learned Single Judge restrained the defendants, presently respondents 2-9, from creating any third party interest in the assets and business of the partnership. The suit valued the amount payable to the plaintiff at Rs. 2 crores.

3. During the course of proceedings, the defendants offered a sum of Rs. 2 crores for amicable settlement of the suit. This was rejected by the plaintiff, as recorded in the order dated 27th February, 2006. Later, however, a common application under Order XXIII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”) for a compromise was filed by the parties on 3rd March, 2006. The compromise recorded as follows:

“1. The parties have amicably, by their free will and consent compromised the present suit on the following terms

(i) The Defendant No. 8 shall pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. 200,00,000/(Rupees Two Crores only) on or before 30 March 2006.

(ii) The said payment shall be in full and final settlement and adjustment of any and all right, title and interest of the Plaintiff in the Defendant No. 1 Firm and the assets, properties, belongings, tenancy and business and affairs of the said Firm including plaintiff’s 8% share in the said Firm.

(iii) Upon the said payment,

(a) The Plaintiff shall cease to have any share in the Defendant No. 1 Firm and shall also have no claim or demand upon the said Firm.

(b) The plaintiff shall have retired from the Defendant No. 1 firm with effect from 1st April 2006 or earlier when payment is made.

(c) The plaintiff shall have no subsisting dispute or difference with any of the defendant firms and all its partners all disputes and differences shall be deemed to be fully and finally, unconditionally and absolutely satisfied.

(d) The share of the plaintiff shall stand transferred to the Defendant No. 8 automatically and without requirement of doing of any act or omission or commission on the part of any of the parties thereto. The defendant No. 8 shall be the sole and absolute owner of the 8% share held by the plaintiff in the Defendant No. 1 firm until now.

(e) The rights of the plaintiff in tenancy of the Defendant No. 1 firm in respect of Hotel Marina at premises No. G-9, Connaught Place, New Delhi shall stand surrendered to the surviving partners of the Defendant No. 1 firm and the plaintiff shall have no subsisting right or interest in the tenancy. It shall be open for the surviving partners of the Defendant No. 1 firm to apply to the landlord for deletion of the plaintiff as a co-tenant in respect of the said premises.

(f) In the event, the landlord for the said premises does not consent to the said deletion, the plaintiff shall authorized and keep authorized Defendant No. 8 or his nominee to act for the plaintiff, in her name and on her behalf on all matters concerning the said tenancy. The said authorization shall be irrevocable and shall be and shall be executed ‘as per the draft enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-1. The plaintiff undertakes not to revoke the said authorization at any time and for any reas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document