Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Usha Joshi - Plaintiff
Versus
Ashok Kumar Ahluwalia and Others - Defendants
CS(OS) 418 of 2022
Decided On : 26-04-2023
Order XXIII Rule 3 - Application for Decree - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - [IA 5530/2023] - The court dismissed the application for a decree as the settlement terms were not signed by the parties, and the defendant did not concede to the prayers made in the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell a property. The parties reached a settlement, but the plaintiff later sought modification of the settlement terms. The defendant argued that the settlement terms were not signed by the parties, and the plaintiff did not comply with the terms of the settlement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the settlement terms were not signed by the parties, and the plaintiff did not comply with the terms of the settlement. The court dismissed the application for a decree as the settlement terms were not signed by the parties, and the defendant did not concede to the prayers made in the suit.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the settlement terms and the plaintiff's compliance with the terms of the settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the settlement terms must be in writing and signed by the parties for a decree to be passed. The court also found that the plaintiff did not comply with the terms of the settlement, leading to the dismissal of the application for a decree.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for a decree, as the settlement terms were not signed by the parties, and the plaintiff did not comply with the terms of the settlement.
JUDGMENT :
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
IA 11269/2022
1. This is an application seeking permission to rely upon the documents which may not be properly legible.
2. The plaintiff shall file the legible copies of such documents.
3. The application is allowed in the above terms.
I.A. 16328/2022
4. The learned counsel for the defendants prays for leave to withdraw the present application with liberty to file afresh.
5. The application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
I.A. 5530/2023
6. This application has been filed by the defendant under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short, ‘CPC’), praying for a decree to be passed in terms of the order 22.07.2022. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff, inter alia praying for the following reliefs:—
b) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants their agents, delegates, representatives, assignees, legal representative legal heirs, etc from creating any third party interest, selling alienating, offering for sale, dealing with or making any alternation or construction of any kind in the property no. B-4/2, area measuring 272.1/5 sq. Yds. Situated in the area of village Basai, Darapur colony, known as Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027 for which the agreement to sell dated 07.03.2022 had been signed and executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff;
c) Award costs of the present litigation in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant;”
7. On the very first date of hearing, that is, 22.07.2022, the following order came to be passed by this Court:
6. Counsel for the plaintiff, on instructions from the plaintiff, who is present in person, states that out of the remaining amount, a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- would be paid to the defendants on or before 31st July, 2022 and the remaining amount shall be paid on or before 20th August, 2022. Counsel for the defendants is agreeable to the same, provided the plaintiff pays interest on the amount paid after 31st July, 2022.
7. Counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff is agreeable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the balance amount that remains unpaid after 31st July, 2022.
8. Accordingly, it is agreed between the parties that on the balance amount that remains unpaid as on 31st July, 2022, the plaintiff shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the defendants.
9. It is also agreed that the plaintiff shall cooperate with the defendants in getting the FIR No. 390/2022 under Sections 420/406/34 of the Penal Code, 1860 registered on 2nd July, 2022 at Kirti Nagar Police Station, quashed.”
8. The defendant states that though the matter stood settled between the parties by the above order, the plaintiff with a mala fide motive, filed an application seeking modification of the said order. The said application, however, was withdrawn by the plaintiff vide order dated 14.03.2023. With the withdrawal of the said application, settlement as recorded in the order dated 22.07.2022 has become final and binding and the sui
Settlement terms must be in writing and signed by the parties for a decree to be passed.
Appellate courts must uphold trial court findings unless explicitly challenged; sales during ongoing litigation violate the principle of lis pendens.
Subsequent purchasers will be bound by lis pendens.
Agreement to sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Once sale agreement is proved and subsequent sale was during pendency of suit hit by doctrine of lis pendens, decree for specific performance can b....
The doctrine of lis pendens overrides the rights of bona fide purchasers when they acquire property during pending litigation concerning the same property, as established by case law.
(1) Lis Pendens – Section 52 of T.P. Act has no application where transfer in favour of subsequent purchaser is not after filing of suit but before filing of suit for specific performance.(2) Resista....
During pendency in any court having authority within limits of India of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in ques....
A pendente lite purchaser cannot assert independent title in execution proceedings, as the doctrine of lis pendens prevails over claims of bona fide purchasers under the Specific Relief Act.
(1) Lis Pendens – Purpose of lis pendens is to ensure that process of court is not subverted and rendered infructuous – Section 52 of T.P. Act would apply to third-party purchaser.(2) Review Jurisdic....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
