Dismissed

Doris v. Denial & Ors.

Delhi HC20 Feb 2019RFA/155/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal against an order enforcing a settlement agreement. The court held the appeal frivolous, noting the settlement was duly signed by all seven parties and counsel, and allegations of fraud lacked particulars. The appellant was ordered to deposit Rs. 15,000.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Rs. 15,000 costs to be deposited by appellant to www.bharatkeveer.gov.in within four weeks.

Doris Vs Denial & Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

RFA No. 155/2019 % 20^th February, 2019 DORIS ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Manendra Mishra and Mr. Vikrant Pratap Singh, Advocates (Mobile No. 9818949469). versus DENIAL & ORS ..... Respondents

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

¶5

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶6

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

¶7

RFA No. 155/2019 and C.M. Appl. Nos. 8119-20/2019

¶8

This is a completely frivolous appeal by a dishonest plaintiff in

¶9

the suit, who entered into a settlement agreement running into eight pages before the Mediation Centre in the trial court, with each page being signed by all the parties including the present appellant/plaintiff,

¶10

and the trial court thus held that the settlement agreement is valid, and

¶11

RFA No. 155/2019 Page 1 of 3

¶12

it consequently disposed of the suit in terms of the settlement agreement by the impugned order dated 18.09.2018.

¶13

Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC requires that a suit can be disposed of as per the settlement if the settlement agreement is in writing and signed by the parties. In the present case, there is a settlement agreement in writing signed by all the parties to the suit, and who are seven in number. The Settlement Agreement is not only signed by the seven parties, but the Settlement Agreement is also signed by the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff before the Mediation Centre.

¶14

The trial court has held that convenient allegations made by the

¶15

appellant/plaintiff that there is fraud and misrepresentation, have to be rejected, inasmuch as, there are no particulars which are given of any fraud or misrepresentation. The trial court, by the impugned order, thus rejected the application of the appellant/plaintiff to treat the settlement as null and void, and allowed the application of the respondent no. 6/defendant no. 6 to pass a decree in terms of the Settlement Agreement.

¶16

Ld. counsel for the appellant/plaintiff argued that

¶17

appellant/plaintiff has not received any amounts in terms of the

¶18

RFA No. 155/2019 Page 2 of 3

¶19

Settlement Agreement dated 30.06.2014, and if that is so, remedy of the appellant/plaintiff is to seek enforcement of the Settlement Agreement which has culminated into a decree, and not to make a prayer for setting aside of the same.

¶20

Ld. counsel for the appellant/plaintiff then argued that respondent no. 6/defendant no. 6 was not properly represented, but I fail to understand how the appellant/plaintiff can have any locus to argue this issue for the respondent no. 6/defendant no. 6 when the respondent no. 6/defendant no. 6 is not questioning the Settlement Agreement himself.

¶21

This is a completely frivolous appeal and therefore the same is dismissed with costs of Rs. 15,000/- which will be deposited by the appellant/plaintiff with the website www.bharatkeveer.gov.in within a period of four weeks from today and receipt thereof be filed in the Court within one week thereafter. All pending applications are also disposed of.

¶22

FEBRUARY 20, 2019/ AK

¶23

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

¶24

RFA No. 155/2019 Page 3 of 3

Doris v. Denial & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doris v. Denial & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Diljeet Singh & Ors. Vs the State ( NCT of Delhi)

S.C. Gupta Vs D.D.A. & Ors.

M/S Goverdhan Dass Rathi Steels Mill Vs East Delhi Municipal Corpration and Anr.

Corporation Bank Vs Govt. of N.C.T of Delhi

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Priya Jain & Ors.

Santosh Sharma Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.