The High Court of Delhi dismissed an appeal challenging a consent decree in a partition suit. The court held that a consent order passed in the presence of parties cannot be modified merely because a party claims they were unaware of the factual basis regarding land area excess.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 10th April, 2019 + RFA(OS) 25/2019 VIRENDER SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Yusuf Khan, Advocate with appellant in person. versus SATYENDRA SINGH ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Manish Tanwar, Advocate with respondent in person.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
C.M. Appl. No. 12540/2019 (for delay)
C.M. stands disposed of.
RFA (OS) 25/2019
Page 1 of 5
RFA(OS) 25/2019 and C.M. Appl. No.12538/2019 (for stay)
RFA (OS) 25/2019
Page 2 of 5
assumption that he was getting excess area and to compensate for the excess area he had agreed to pay Rs.20,00,000/- to the respondent/defendant. However, the area is not in excess and thus the respondent/defendant would not be entitled to Rs.20,00,000/-.
“1. Counsels for the parties have been heard. Parties are also present in person and they also have been heard.
RFA (OS) 25/2019
Page 3 of 5
defendant within four months. If the amount of Rs.20 lacs is not paid within four months, then, after expiry of four months the amount of Rs.20 lacs will carry interest @ 12% per annum simple and execution proceedings can be initiated by the defendant for recovery of such amount. On payment of amount of Rs.20 lacs by the plaintiff to the defendant, the rights of the parties will stand crystallized in terms of the Local Commissioner‟s report dated 17.5.2017 alongwith the accompanying plans and the portions „A‟ and „B‟ as per the plans and as already stated above.
RFA (OS) 25/2019
Page 4 of 5
G.S.SISTANI, J
JYOTI SINGH, J
APRIL 10, 2019/ AK
RFA (OS) 25/2019
Page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a consent decree passed in the presence of the parties can be modified on the ground that a party was unaware that the area allotted was in excess.
Whether the Single Judge's rejection of an application seeking modification of a consent order was legally sound.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Virender Singh
Satyendra Singh
G.S. Sistani
Jyoti Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
