O R D E R

% 23.09.2024 I.A. 2813/2023

1. This application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for recall of the Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 04.03.2020 passed by this Court.

2. In the application, it is stated that though the decree is styled as a decree passed on the basis of a compromise between the parties, apart from the fact that it did not meet the mandatory requirements of a consent decree, even on the reading of the same, it was not passed with the consent of the parties.

3. The learned counsel for the defendants submits that the Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 04.03.2020 was not passed with the consent of the parties. The parties had arrived at a preliminary consent and there were certain disputes still left between the parties.

He submits that these were, thereafter, decided by the Court finding what it felt was most equitable and on the basis of the documents.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

5. The Judgment and Decree dated 04.03.2020 inter alia records as under:

“11. As would be obvious, the parties have amicably agreed to the steel door and the door at point ‘F’ remaining closed at all times; save in emergency, when ingress and egress from basement to Driveway at point ‘B’ being not possible. The only difference which remains between the parties is, that the plaintiffs, while agreeing to the steel door and the door at point ‘F’ remaining closed and the plaintiffs not using the same, save in emergencies, desire a duplicate key for opening the said doors in emergencies, and to which the defendants are not agreeing citing security reasons, since from the said doors, anybody, including through the basement, can approach the first and second floors of the property which the defendants are using as their residence.

12. It is not deemed apposite that the aforesaid minor difference comes in the way of the suit being disposed of as otherwise amicably agreed. I am told that the parties otherwise enjoy a cordial relationship and exchange pleasantries.

13. The insistence of the plaintiffs on duplicate keys to the doors providing access in emergencies from the basement to Driveway at point ‘D’ in Ex.C-l, is not found to be reasonable (i) considering that the plaintiffs are not residing in/using the ground floor and the basement of the property; and, (ii) considering the apprehensions of the defendants, who are residing on the first and second floors as to their security and which apprehensions are well-founded.

14. Merit is also found in the contention of the counsel for the defendants that the defendants cannot afford to restrict or come in the way of aforesaid, access from the doors, in emergencies, because of themselves residing on the upper floors of the property and which will also come to harm.

15. It is thus deemed appropriate to dispose of the suit, by recording the compromise as arrived at and by directing (i) that the plaintiffs shall not have access from the basement of property No.S-54, Panchshila Park, New Delhi-110017 to Driveway at point D, through the door at point ‘F’ in Ex.C-1, save in emergencies; (ii) by accepting the undertakings of the defendants, to, in emergency situation, when the occupants of the basement in the event of fire in or flooding of basement are unable to egress and ingress therefrom through Driveway B, or when access through Driveway at point ‘D’ is required to save the basement from fire or flooding or other like event, allow such egress and ingress and access through the doors aforesaid and Driveway at point ‘D’ and to immediately on such emergency happening, allow the said access and by binding the defendants by their undertaking and cautioning them through counsel of consequences of breach of undertaking given to the Court; (iii) by directing, that if at any point of time none is likely to be present on the first and second floors and/or none who is able to immediately pr