Rohtas Singh vs. Kedar Kaushik
AI Summary
In this Delhi High Court appeal, a property dispute between Rohtas Singh and Kedar Kaushik was resolved through an amicable settlement during the pendency of the appeal. The court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit as withdrawn after the parties reached a settlement involving property documents and monetary consideration of Rs. 2,50,000, demonstrating the effectiveness of out-of-court settlements in civil disputes.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent's Counsel
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
Rohtas Singh filed a suit against Kedar Kaushik claiming damages and seeking mandatory and prohibitory injunctions regarding a property dispute. The lower court dismissed the damages claim but granted the injunctions. Rohtas Singh appealed to the High Court. During the appeal, the parties negotiated and reached a settlement. According to the settlement, Rohtas Singh would execute certain property documents in favor of Kedar Kaushik in exchange for Rs. 2,50,000. Some of these documents are compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act but had not yet been registered at the time of the order.
Timeline of Events
Original suit filed in the subordinate court (Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi) with case number T362002
Appeal registered in the High Court as RFA 697/2002
Process fee filed by Rajender Agarwal
Reply filed by N.K. Kashyap
Parties reach amicable settlement during appeal pendency
High Court hears the appeal and passes final order allowing appeal and dismissing suit as withdrawn
Key Factual Findings
Parties arrived at an amicable settlement during the pendency of the appeal
Source: Current Court Finding
Settlement involved plaintiff executing certain documents regarding the suit property
Source: Current Court Finding
Consideration for settlement was Rs. 2,50,000
Source: Current Court Finding
Some documents executed as part of settlement are compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act
Source: Current Court Finding
Compulsorily registrable documents had not been registered at the time of the order
Source: Current Court Finding
Lower court had dismissed the damages claim but granted mandatory and prohibitory injunctions
Source: Recited from Lower Court Judgment
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Questions of Law
Statutes Applied
Petitioner's Arguments
Rohtas Singh (appellant) argued through his counsel that the appeal should be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree should be set aside based on the amicable settlement reached with the respondent during the pendency of the appeal.
Respondent's Arguments
Kedar Kaushik (respondent) through his proxy counsel Gaurav Kainth submitted that he had clear instructions from the plaintiff and his counsel to state that in light of the settlement, the decree passed by the lower court could be set aside and the suit could be dismissed as withdrawn.
Court's Reasoning
The High Court accepted the settlement reached by the parties during the pendency of the appeal. The court noted that the parties had arrived at an amicable settlement whereby the plaintiff executed certain documents regarding the suit property in exchange for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000. The court found that the settlement was a valid basis for allowing the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, and dismissing the suit as withdrawn. The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to facilitate the settlement and dispose of the matter in accordance with the parties' wishes.
- Emphasis on Alternative Dispute Resolution - Court facilitated and accepted settlement
- Pragmatic Approach to Justice - Court prioritized settlement over contested judgment
- Respect for Party Autonomy - Court honored the parties' agreement to settle
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.Appeal allowed
- 2.Impugned judgment and decree set aside
- 3.Suit filed by plaintiff/respondent dismissed as withdrawn
- 4.Parties to bear their own costs
Precedential Assessment
Persuasive (Other High Court)
This is a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court dealing with procedural aspects of settlement during appeal. While not binding on other courts, it provides persuasive authority on the court's approach to facilitating settlements and the procedure for dismissing suits as withdrawn during appeal pendency.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
For Admission
Before:
Hon'ble Hon'Ble Mr. Justice R.S. Sodhi
Listed On:
11 Sept 2006
Order Text
%
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RFA 697/2002
ROHTAS SINGH
..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajender Aggarwal, Advocate
versus
KEDAR KAUSHIK ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Kainth, Proxy counsel
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L.BHAYANA
ORDER
11.09.2006
This appeal arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the court of an Additional District & Sessions Judge, Delhi in a suit claiming damages and seeking mandatory and prohibitory injunctions against the defendant/appellant herein.
The court below has, while dismissing the claim for damages, sumdecreed the same in so far as the plaintiff had prayed for a mandatory and prohibitory injunctions against the defendant.
Learned counsel for the parties have today drawn our attention to CM No.12339/06 filed under Order XXIII, rule 3 r/w Section 151 CPC. It is submitted that the parties have, during the pendency of the present appeal, arrived at an amicable settlement according to which the plaintiff has executed certain documents in regard to the suit property on receipt of a consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-. These documents include some documents which are compulsorily registrable under the provisions of the Registration Act, have not so far been got registered.
Be that as it may, it is submitted by the counsel for the parties that this appeal could be allowed, impugned judgment and decree set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff herein dismissed as withdrawn. Mr. Gaurav Kainth, the for counsel Kashyap, counsel appearing Mr. Navin for proxy plaintiff/respondent, submitted that he has clear instructions from the plaintiff as also his counsel to state that in the light of the settlement, the decree passed by the court below can be set aside and also the suit could be dismissed as withdrawn.
In the circumstances, therefore, and in the light of the submissions
and the second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second s
made at the bar, we allow the present appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree and dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent as withdrawn leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
T.S. THAKUR, J ashoughny S.L.BHAYANA, J
÷
ar-FR
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order