JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, ACJ: (ORAL)

CM APPL. 32187/2024(for exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

FAO(OS) 77/2024& CM APPL. 32186/2024

1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act,1966 (‘Act of 1966’) seeking setting aside of judgment dated 07th May, 2024 (‘impugned judgment’) passed in CS (OS) 1210/2013, whereby the interlocutory applications1 filed by the Appellants herein in the underlying disposed of suit have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

2. The Appellant also seeks to impugn the order and decree dated 15th March, 2022 (‘impugned order’) passed in the underlying disposed of suit, whereby the underlying suit was decreed with the consent of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the application filed under order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) on the basis of a SettlementAgreement dated 25th January, 2021 signed before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (‘Mediation Centre’).

3. The brief facts relevant for deciding the present appeal are as follows: 3.1. It is a matter of record that on 24th January, 2013, theAppellant(s) and Respondent No. 1 herein entered into an agreement to sell (‘ATS’) with respect to property bearing number 14-A/69, WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (‘subject property’) for a total sale consideration of Rs. 3,61,00,000/-. Addendum to the said ATS was also executed on 19th July, 2014.

3.2. It is stated that as per ATS, it was decided that Respondent No. 1 will obtain possession of the suit property from Respondent No. 2 in order to execute the sale deed in favour of theAppellant(s).

3.3. It is stated that the Appellant(s) had paid Rs. 2.5 crores as a part-consideration against the purchase of the subject property at the time of execution of ATS. However, since the demeanor of Respondent No. 1 indicated unwillingness to execute the sale deed, theAppellant(s) filed a suit

1 I.A.Nos.7945/2023,4391/2021and5902/2022 for specific performance against Respondent No. 1 before this Court on the original side and the said suit was separately numbered as CS (OS) 325/2017 titled as Urmila Vohra & Anr. V. Janak Properties Private Limited & Ors.

3.4. It is stated thatAppellant(s) learnt that Respondent No. 1 had filed the underlying suit2 against Respondent No. 2 seeking recovery of possession of the subject property. It is stated that since the Appellant(s) acquired interest in the subject property by way of ATS dated 24th January, 2013, therefore, on 06th November, 2019, the Appellant(s) filed an interlocutory application3 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, in the underlying suit, thereby seeking impleadment in the said suit proceedings.

3.5. It is stated that, in the interregnum, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 entered into a Mediation Settlement dated 25th January, 2021 and settled the matter in CS(OS) 1210/2013. It is stated that subsequently, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a joint application i.e., I.A. No. 2316/2021 under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC, to record the said settlement arrived at between them. And by impugned Order dated 15th March, 2022, the learned Single Judge allowed I.A. No. 2316/2021 and accordingly, the underlying suit being CS(OS) 1210/2013 was decreed in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 25th January, 2021.All the pending applications were also disposed of by the said order.

3.6. It is stated that being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15th March, 2022, the Appellant(s) filed an interlocutory application4 under

2 CS(OS)1210/2013titledasJanakPropertiesPrivateLimited&Anr.v.AmarjeetSingh

3 I.A.No.4391/2021 4 IANo.5902/2022 Section 151 read with Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, thereby seeking recall of the order dated 15th March, 2022.

3.7. It is stated that during the pendency of the aforesaid application, the original applicant-Mrs. Urmila Vohra passed away and, therefore, her legal heir filed I.A. No. 7945/2023 under Order XXII Rules 2 and 3 of CPC for brining on record h