Urmila Agarwal and Anr. Vs Pawan Properties and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Urmila Agarwal and Anr. Vs Pawan Properties and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Suit decreed against defendant no.1 in terms of the Terms of Settlement dated 25th February, 2026, which was made part of the decree; suit disposed of against all defendants; all pending applications disposed of; interim order(s) vacated; decree to be drawn up expeditiously.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Terms of Settlement dated 25th February, 2026 between the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 is lawful, and whether the suit should be decreed against defendant no.1 in terms of it. +1 more

Court's answer

The Terms of Settlement between the plaintiffs and defendant no.1, duly stamped and punched on 26th February, 2026, is prima facie lawful; the suit is decreed against defendant no.1 in terms of the Terms of Settlement, which is made part of the decree.

Ratio / Principle

The suit stands disposed of against all the defendants on the decree being passed against the defendant no.1.

Key takeaways

All pending applications in the suit stand disposed of without any further order.ratio¶20
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.ratio¶22
Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Advocate for defendant no.2, is permitted to file his Vakalatnama in the suit by 10th March, 2026.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Consent decree — High Court at Calcutta, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, Original Side (Arindam Mukherjee, J., 6 March 2026) in CS 84 of 2023, IA No. GA/1/2023 (Urmila Agarwal & Anr. v. Pawan Properties & Ors.): The plaintiffs and defendant no.1 settled their disputes by a Terms of Settlement dated 25th February, 2026. Finding it prima facie lawful (duly stamped and punched on 26th February, 2026), the Court decreed the suit against defendant no.1 in terms of the settlement and made it part of the decree; the suit stood disposed of against all defendants. Defendant nos.2 to 5 were not signatories to the settlement, and it was submitted that no relief was sought against them in paragraph 56 of the plaint; defendant no.2 submitted that the settlement could neither affect its rights nor bind it. All pending applications were disposed of, interim orders stood vacated, Mr. Paritosh Sinha was permitted to file Vakalatnama for defendant no.2 by 10th March, 2026, and the decree was directed to be drawn up expeditiously.

OD-2

ORDER SHEET

CS 84 of 2023 IA No.GA/1/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE

URMILA AGARWAL & ANR. VS. PAWAN PROPERTIES & ORS.

BEFORE:

The Hon’ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE Date: 6^th March, 2026.

Mr. V. V. V. Sastry, Mr. Debargha Basu, Ms. Khusi Gupta, Advocates for the plaintiffs.

Mr. Soumya Ray Chowdhury, Mr. Sanjay Ginodia, Mr. Manoj Kr. Tiwari, Ms. Rajeshwari Prasad, Advocates for defendant no.1.

Mr. Sukrit Mukherjee, Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Mr. K. K. Pandey, Ms. Mallika Bothra, Advocates for defendant no.2.

The Court : The plaintiffs and the defendant no.1 have settled the disputes involved in this suit which is recorded in a Terms of Settlement dated 25^th February, 2026 signed by the plaintiffs and the defendant no.1 and their respective Advocates. The Terms of Settlement is taken on record. The defendant nos.2 to 5 are not the signatories to the Terms of Settlement.

It is submitted by the plaintiffs that in paragraph 56 of the plaint it has been categorically stated that no relief has been sought for against the defendant nos.2 to 5. The word “Parties” has been also defined in such manner in the Terms of Settlement.

On behalf of the defendant no.2 it is submitted that the plaintiffs and

2

the defendant no.1 are free to settle the disputes inter se between them which neither can affect the right of the defendant no.2 nor will be binding on the said defendant. It is further submitted by the defendant no.2 that in the Terms of Settlement it is mentioned as “Parties” which pre-supposes that the same includes all the defendants in the suit. It is also submitted that it should be clarified that the Terms of Settlement has not been entered into by and between the plaintiffs and the defendant no.2.

On behalf of the plaintiffs it is submitted that no Vakalatnama has been filed by the defendant no.2 in the suit although writ of summons has been served on the said defendant.

Mr. Paritosh Sinha, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant no.2 submits that M/s. Sinha & Company, Advocates have entered appearance on behalf of the defendant no.2 in the interlocutory application and he takes the responsibility of representing the defendant no.2 in the suit.

Mr. Sinha is, therefore, permitted to file his Vakalatnama in the suit by 10^th March, 2026.

After considering the Terms of Settlement which is duly stamped and punched on 26^th February, 2026, I find that the same are prima facie lawful. The suit is decreed against the defendant no.1 in terms of the Terms of Settlement by making the said Terms of Settlement a part of the decree.

The suit stands disposed of against all the defendants on the decree being passed against the defendant no.1.

All pending applications in the suit also stand disposed of without any further order.

3

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Let the decree be drawn up expeditiously.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)

pa