It appears from the certified copies of the orders passed in the civil suit that the plaintiff and defendant no.2 (i.e. the decree holder and the judgment debtor) jointly moved interim applications i.e. lA 4164/2013 (under Section 89 CPC) and IA 4165/2013 (under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC) informing the court that they had agreed to resolve the controversy between two of them. The application was accompanied by deed of agreement dated 26.02.2013 which was executed on the letterhead of the defendant / judgment debtor, its copies having been filed at page 31 of the paper book at hand. In terms of the said deed of agreement dated 26.02.2013, the judgment debtor herein had agreed to pay and the decree holder (plaintiff) had agreed to receive an amount of ?70 Lakhs receipt of the security deposit funds from the MCD". Though in the said deed of agreement signed by the authorised representatives of the plaintiff and defendant no.2, it was so indicated that the payment to be made in its terms would be behalf of both the defendants'" and further that it had also been agreed that both sides will not raise any further claim thereafter, when the said application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC came up for consideration before the court on 13.03.2013, it was pointed out by the counsel for defendant no.l that the said party (defendant no.l) had not authorised defendant no.2 (the judgment debtor) to settle the dispute on its behalf and thus, the settlement was not binding on it. In the wake of these submissions, the plaintiff (decree holder) and defendant no.2 (judgment debtor), through counsel, submitted to the court that they concurred that the
