✦ Delhi High Court

Judgment · High Court

K PATHAK

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

Ms. Sneha Jain, Adv. for the Plaintiff. Ms. Bijal Trivedi, Adv. for the Defendant. + I.A. No. 12742/2011 fu/O 23 R 3 r/w Sec. 151 CPCl in CSfOSl No. 527/2011 * Parties have arrived at an out of Court settlement. Terms of settlement have been recorded in paras 2 (a) to (j) of the application, which is marked as Mark C-1. The application has not only been signed by the parties but also supported by their respective affidavits. I have perused the application and find the compromise to be lawful. Accordingly, a compromise decree is passed in terms of mark C-1 which shall form part of the Decree. Decree sheet be drawn. In terms of the compromise, counsel for the defendants has handed over demand draft of ?1.5 lakh, a photocopy whereof has been placed on record, to the counsel for the plaintiffs towards satisfaction of Clause 2(d). Since parties have arrived at an out of court settlement, let 50% of the Court fee be refunded to the plaintiffs, in accordance with law. All interim orders stand vacated and pending applications are disposed of as infructuous. August 12, 2011 t:K. PATHAK, J.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Delhi High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments