S.P.GARG, J.

IA 8454/2017 (u/S 141 and 151 CPC)

1. The instant application has been filed by the plaintiffs to stay operation of the letters dated 17.02.2016, 07.11.2016, 09.11.2016, 02.03.2017 and 12.07.2017 issued by the defendant No.1 to restrain the defendants from taking coercive steps or to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs over the land and building in question in any manner whatsoever. The application is contested by the defendant No.1.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have filed the instant suit inter alia seeking specific performance and injunctions against the defendants. By an order dated 18.05.2001, this Court restrained defendant No.1 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in any manner and from disconnecting, withholding any amenities including water and/or electricity on the plaintiffs paying the licence fee in terms of the said order. Order reveals that FAO (OS) 310/2001 to challenge order dated 18.05.2001 resulted in its dismissal by an order dated 12.03.2003. The operation of the said order was suspended for four weeks to enable the plaintiffs to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is unclear if the said order was challenged before the Supreme Court and if so, what was its outcome. Various IAs were filed on several occasions. Finally, on 24.08.2004, the issues were settled. It took around two years to carry on admission and denial of documents. Again, CM 3436/2006 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed by the plaintiffs; it was allowed on 24.08.2006. After the amendment, again, it took substantial time to admit or deny the documents and it could be done on 17.05.2008. Again, application under Order XIV Rule 5 was filed to recast issues; it was allowed and vide order dated 19.08.2009 issues were recast. The matter was listed before Joint Registrar to record evidence. Pursuant to the filing of IA No.3085/2010, issues earlier framed were corrected and modified. Court Commissioner was appointed to record evidence. Record reveals that again various IAs were filed from time to time and not a single witness could be examined before the Court Commissioner. The plaintiff filed IA 7432/2011 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on 06.05.2011. Before it could be disposed of IA 7172/2015 was filed on 10.04.2015. This was an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC filed by the plaintiffs informing that on payment of arrears of licence fee of Rs.150,92,43,676/-in satisfaction of the full licence dues and interest payable up to the year 2013-2014, the matter stood settled with the defendant in view of the correspondence including letters dated 02.03.2015 and 26.03.2015 received from the defendants and communication dated 26.03.2015 written by the plaintiffs to the defendants. In view of the satisfaction, by an order dated 21.04.2015 this Court passed a decree in terms of the correspondence between the parties.

3. Subsequently, IA 15580/2015 was filed on behalf of the defendant No.1 for setting aside the compromise decree allegedly procured by playing fraud in connivance with certain officials of the NDMC. Initially, it was opposed by the plaintiffs. On 15.07.2016 arguments were heard on the application and the matter was reserved for orders. The matter was taken up on 09.08.2016 upon ‘mention’ having being made by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs, on instructions, stated that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the plaintiffs and without admitting any of the averments made in IA 15580/2015 of the NDMC the plaintiffs had no objection to the order dated 21.04.2015 decreeing the suit being set aside/recalled and the suit being proceeded with in accordance with law with liberty to the plaintiffs in support of their suit claims also plead the settlement on the basis of which the suit was earlier decreed. Accordingly, order dated 21.04.2015 was recalled/set aside. The matter was listed before the Joint Regis