Disposed¶37

Suparn Pandey v. Gayatri Dahiya

Delhi HC21 May 2026CS(OS)/554/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, CS(OS) 554/2019, Suparn Pandey v Gayatri Dahiya; suit for damages, declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction; settled before Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre vide Settlement Agreement dated 08.04.2025; disposal sought via I.A. 14449/2026 under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC; agreement found lawful and taken on record; parties bound, violation treated as breach of undertaking to Court; suit disposed of as withdrawn on 21.05.2026 before Subramonium Prasad, J.; entire court fee refund under Section 16 Court Fees Act; defendant appeared in person.

What did the court decide?

Suit disposed of as withdrawn in terms of the Settlement Agreement; Registry directed to refund the entire court fees to the Plaintiffs. ¶37

Suparn Pandey Vs Gayatri Dahiya — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Suit disposed of as withdrawn in terms of the Settlement Agreement; Registry directed to refund the entire court fees to the Plaintiffs.

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the Suit may be disposed of in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 08.04.2025 under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The present Suit is disposed of under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 13.05.2026, along with pending application(s), if any.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The Court is of the opinion that the Settlement Agreement is lawful in nature and is capable of being accepted under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC.

¶27

Key takeaways

The Parties are bound by the terms contained in the Settlement Agreement and are directed to abide by it and not raise any further disputes in implementing it.ratio¶34
Any violation of the Settlement Agreement would be construed as a violation of an undertaking given to the Court.ratio¶35
Since the suit has been settled between the parties, the Plaintiffs are entitled to refund of the entire court fee in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, and the Registry is directed to refund the entire court fees to the Plaintiffs.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil suit for damages, declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction (Suparn Pandey v Gayatri Dahiya, CS(OS) 554/2019, High Court of Delhi) disposed of on 21.05.2026 by Subramonium Prasad, J., on the parties' joint application I.A. 14449/2026 under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC, in terms of a Settlement Agreement dated 08.04.2025 entered into before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The Court found the agreement lawful and capable of acceptance under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, took it on record, bound the parties to abide by its terms without raising further disputes, and made clear that any violation would be construed as a violation of an undertaking given to the Court. The Suit was disposed of as withdrawn, and the Plaintiffs were held entitled to refund of the entire court fee in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, with the Registry directed to effect the refund. The Defendant appeared in person.

¶1

$~53

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(OS) 554/2019

¶4

SUPARN PANDEY .....Plaintiff

¶5

Through: Mr. Anchit Sharma and Mohd. Faraz Khan, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

GAYATRI DAHIYA .....Defendant Through: Ms. Gayatri Dahiya, In-person

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶9

O R D E R % 21.05.2026

¶10

I.A. 14449/2026

¶11

The present Application has been filed by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC for disposing of the present Suit in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 08.04.2025, entered into between the parties before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

¶12

The present Suit is one for damages, declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. It is stated that vide Settlement Agreement dated 08.04.2025, the parties have settled the disputes. A copy of the Settlement Agreement has been annexed with the present Application. The Settlement Agreement is reproduced in its entirety,

¶13

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 11:59:38

¶14

and the same reads as under:-

¶15

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 11:59:38

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 11:59:38

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 11:59:38

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 11:59:38

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 11:59:38

¶26

The Settlement Agreement has been signed by all the parties.

¶27

This Court has perused the Settlement Agreement and is of the opinion that the same is lawful in nature and is capable of being accepted under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC.

¶28

The Settlement Agreement is taken on record.

¶29

The instant Application has been signed by all the parties and is

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 11:59:38

¶32

accompanied by their respective affidavits.

¶33

The Plaintiff has joined the proceedings through video conferencing today. She has been identified by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff states that she has read and understood the contents of the Settlement Agreement. She also states that the Settlement Agreement has been entered into without any coercion or under influence.

¶34

The Parties are bound by the terms contained in the Settlement Agreement. The parties are directed to abide by the Settlement Agreement and not raise any further disputes in implementing the Settlement Agreement.

¶35

It is made clear that any violation of the Settlement Agreement would be construed as a violation of an undertaking given to the Court. 10. The present Suit is disposed of under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 13.05.2026, along with pending application(s), if any.

¶36

Since the suit has been settled between the parties, the Plaintiffs are entitled to refund of the entire court fee in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act. The Registry is directed to refund the entire court fees to the Plaintiffs.

¶37

Accordingly, the Suit is disposed of as withdrawn.

¶38

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶39

MAY 21, 2026 Prateek

¶40

This is a digitally signed order.

¶41

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/05/2026 at 11:59:38

Suparn Pandey v. Gayatri Dahiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suparn Pandey v. Gayatri Dahiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh. Abhishek Gupta Vs Smt. Saroj Chawla & Ors.

Amit Varma Vs Ms. Shakuntala Varma and Anr.

Mohini Kukreja Vs Jyoti Kukreja & Ors.

Sunil Kumar & Anr. Vs Ramesh Tokas & Ors.

Karmawali and Anr. Vs Harpreet Singh Batra

Aditya Kumar Saboo Vs Ravi & Ors.

Anil Tyagi Vs Ashok Tyagi & Ors.

Lt.Col.(Retd.) S.D. Surie (Deceased) Thru Lr'S Vs Paramount Enterprises Ltd. & Anr.

Dhara Motor Finance Ltd. Vs Shadab and Ors.

M/S Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sh. Kewal Krishan Kanodia Proprietor of Aditya Exports and Anr.

Hindon Mercantile Ltd. Vs Neogen Diagnostics and Poly Clinic Private Limited & Ors.

Srodeep Infra Developers Limited Vs Seema Bawa & Ors.

Shugufta Nabi Vs Haris Wali Khan & Anr.

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs Uttez Digital India Private Limited