The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity and lawfulness of the settlement reached between the parties, as well as the applicability of Section 16, Section 16A, and Section 89 of the CPC, and the Court Fees Act.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - I.A. 15997/2021

1. Present application has been filed by the plaintiffs under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC seeking impleadment of Mr.Ranjit Bansali, proprietor of Oswal Electricals as defendant to the present suit.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits thatat the time of filing the present suit, the plaintiffs were under the bona fide impression that the defendant No. 1 was operating fromthe premises located at BA-15, Phase 2, Truck Market, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Delhi- 110083. However, during the execution of the Local Commission on 24.09.2021, the plaintiffs came to know that the saidpremise was controlled and operated by the proposed defendant no.2 and not by defendant no.1. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that now no relief qua defendant No.1 is sought and thereby, his name be deleted from the Array of Parties mentioned in the Amended Memo of Parties dated 01.12.2021.

3. In view of the reasons stated in the present application and the submission of counsel for the plaintiff, the application is allowed. Defendant No.1 is deleted from the Array of Parties and Mr.Ranjit Bansali, proprietor of Oswal Electricals is impleaded as defendant in the present suit.

4. The application is accordingly disposed of.

I.A.15996/2021

5. The present application has been jointly filed by plaintiff and defendant- Ranjit Bansali praying for issuance of decree in terms of Para 4 of the present application and for refund of entire Court fees.

6. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringement of trademarks, copyright, passing off, damages, acts of unfair competition, dilution, misrepresentation, delivery up,rendition of accounts,etc.

7. This court is informed that the plaintiffs and defendant- Ranjit Bansalihave amicably resolved their disputes out of court, in terms as stated in Paragraph 4 of the present application.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that in terms of settlement, the present suit be decreed against defendant- Ranjit Bansali.

9. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the application and in specific contents of Para-4 thereof, this Court finds that the settlement reached between the parties is valid and lawful.

10. Accordingly, the present joint application filed by the plaintiffs and defendant- Ranjit Bansaliisallowed. Needless to say, parties shall be bound by the terms of settlement reached between them.

11. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

CS(COMM) 446/2019

12. In view of order passed in IA No. 15597/2021, name of defendant-Sanjeev Goel is deleted from the Array of Parties (as mentioned in the Amended Memo of Parties dated 01.12.2021) and the present suit shall proceed qua defendant-Ranjit Bansali.

13. Further, in view of order passed in I.A. 15996/2021 (u/O XXIII Rule 3 CPC),the present suit is decreed qua defendant-Ranjit Bansaliin terms mentioned in Paragraph No.4 of this application, which shall form part of decree sheet. Decree sheet be accordingly drawn.

14. Learned counsel also submits that since the subject matter of the suit stands amicably resolved, therefore, in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, the entire court fees be refunded to the plaintiffs.

15. A Division Bench of this Court in NutanBatra Vs. M/s. Buniyaad Associates 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12916 while allowing an appeal against the order of refusal of refund of entire court fee in a suit, had dealt with the applicability provisions of Sections 16 and 16A of the Act and Section 89 of the CPC. The Division Bench relying upon the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, (2010) 8 SCC 24,observed as under:-

"8. Section 89 has been interpreted inter alia in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, (2010) 8 SCC