Judgment:
ORDER
B.S. Patil, J.
1. On 22.04.2009, this Court has passed the following order on the compromise petition filed by the parties:
Sri Yeshu Mishra, learned Counsel files vakalath for respondent No. 1 (Plaintiff No. 1).
Sri G. Vikram, learned Counsel files vakalath for Respondents 2, 3 and 4 (Defendants 2, 3 and 4).
M/s King & Patridge, learned Counsel files vakalathfor Respondent No.5 (Defendant No. 5)
Though this writ petition arises out of an order passed on an interlocutory application granting amendment of the plaint, the parties in the proceedings have filed a compromise petition stating that the entire dispute between them has been settled in terms stated in the compromise petition and therefore the suit itself may be disposed of in terms of the compromise agreed between the parties.
All the parties are present before the Court. Insofar as Defendant No. 7 Mrs. Beena Philip who is petitioner No. 3 herein is concerned she is represented by defendant No. 8 Mrs. Swapna Mammen - Petitioner No. 4 herein though a registered Power of Attorney executed in her favour.
Counsel for the parties have not produced the copy of the said registered Power of Attorney along with the compromise memo. They undertake to file the same on the next date of hearing.
However, as all the other parties are present, in my view, it is unnecessary to direct them to be present again on the next date of hearing. All the parties present have been duly identified by their learned Counsel. The parties who are present before the Court have stated before the Court that the terms of the compromise have been granted to by them voluntarily having understood the contents of the same which have been duly explained to them.
In the light of the above, there is no impediment for recording the compromise in accordance with the Compromise Petition filed However, as the Power of Attorney executed is not produced, relist this case along with W.P. No. 12566/2008 in the orders list on 24.04.2008.
2. Today, the counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the registered Power of Attorney executed by petitioner No. 3 in favour of petitioner No. 4 authorizing him to enter into tie compromise on behalf of petitioner No. 3 as well. Memo and copy of the registered Power of Attorney is taken on record. The subject matter of the dispute is sought to be fully and completely settled between the parties in terms of the compromise reached between them.
3. On consideration of the terms of compromise, I find no impediment in law to permit the parties to compromise the suit in terms stated in the compromise petition. The terms agreed to, do not contravene any provisions of law. As the parties have voluntarily entered into compromise and have stated before the Court that they have entered into the compromise voluntarily, having understood the terms contained therein, in my considered view, it is unnecessary to again direct them to appear before the Court below for this purpose.
4. In the light of the above, the compromise petition is accepted. In Clause 8.4 of the terms of compromise, petitioner No. 1/defendant No. 1 has agreed to pay to the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 a non-refundable sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) at the time of acceptance of the compromise by the Court. Pursuant to this clause contained in the compromise, petitioner No. 1/defendant No. 3 has paid a Cheque bearing No. 4842500101660401 dated 24.04.2009 favouring plaintiff -respondent No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. This payment of the amount through cheque is acknowledged by the counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. In view of the payment of the amount as agreed, fifth defendant/fifth respondent herein will be entitled to resume and proceed with the construction of the project in terms of the Joint Development Agreement as per Clause 10 of the compromise petition.
Accordingly, the suit is disposed of in terms of the compromise petition. The Court below is directed to draw up a decree in terms of the compromise petition.
With the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.