V.K. Jain, J.

IA 11371/2012 (under Section 151 for recording the order dated 30.03.2006), 11372/2012 (under Section 5 of Limitation Act)

1. The plaintiff and defendants no.2 to 9 were the partners in defendant no.1, a partnership firm namely M/s Hotel Marina, and the plaintiff had a share of 8% in the profits and losses of the said partnership firm. She filed this suit seeking dissolution of the partnership firm and rendition of accounts. She also sought an injunction restraining the defendants from carrying on business of the partnership firm M/s Hotel Marina and creating any third party interest in the properties of the firm.

2. During pendency of this suit, a joint application, being IA No.6376/2006 was filed by the plaintiff and defendants no.1 & 8 for recording the settlement set out in paragraph (1) of the application and passing a decree in terms thereof. It would be pertinent to note here that the plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of defendant no.8. The statements of the plaintiff Mrs. Vibha Mehta and defendants no.8 Mr. S.B. Mehta were recorded on 3.3.2006 and the suit was decreed in terms of the said IA No.6376/2006. It was directed by the Court that upon payment of Rs. 2 crores being made by the defendant no.8 to the plaintiff in terms of the settlement, the interim order dated 14.12.2005, whereby the defendants were restrained from creating any third party interest/additions/modifications in the assets of the partnership business shall stand vacated. The learned counsel for the plaintiff stated before the Court that in view of the settlement, no claim survived against the defendants no.2 to 7.

3. IA No.4079/2006 was then filed by defendant no.8 seeking directions to the plaintiff to execute the documents in accordance with the application. Another application being IA No.5215/2006 was also filed by the defendant no.8 seeking permission of the Court to deposit a draft of Rs. 2 crore in the Court or in the alternative to deposit the said amount in the name of Registrar General of this Court.

4. During the course of hearing of IA No.4079/2006 and IA No.5215/2006, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the compromise between the parties had fallen through and, therefore, could not be enforced. The first contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff was that the payment of Rs. 2 crore had not been made to the plaintiff on or before 30.03.2006. His second contention was that the settlement between the parties was only with regard to the disputes raised in the plaint concerning plaintiff’s 8% share in the partnership firm. His contention was that there were some other amounts which the plaintiff had given which were either as loan to the firm or were otherwise due to the plaintiff and were not the subject matter of the instant suit and accordingly were also not the subject matter of the settlement inter se parties. This Court vide order dated 02.06.2006, while rejecting the contention of the plaintiff, held that the intention of the parties was to fully and completely settle all their differences and disputes without leaving anything outstanding and directed that the amount of Rs. 2 crore which the defendant no.1 had deposited in the Court could be withdrawn by the plaintiff on execution of the documents, the text of which had been filed with IA No.4079/2006.

5. The order passed by this Court on 2.6.2006 was challenged by the plaintiff by way of FAO(OS) No.492/2006. A Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of the appeal filed by the plaintiff, inter alia, vide order dated 3.1.2012 held as under:

“9. Though the learned counsel for both the parties have made the submissions on the merits of the aforesaid impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, but we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to go into the respective contentions. From the facts noted above, it becomes clear that joint application was preferred by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC. On this joint applica