Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a long-standing eviction dispute. The respondent-plaintiff (licensor) instituted S.C. Suit No. 869 of 1975 against the applicants-defendants (licensees) seeking vacant possession of suit premises and damages. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 7th May 1997. The defendants appealed (Appeal No. 733 of 1997). During the pendency of the appeal, the parties entered into consent terms on 19th January 2006, which were accepted by the Division Bench (R.M. Lodha and Anoop V. Mohta, JJ). Under the consent terms, the applicants accepted and confirmed the eviction decree and agreed to vacate the suit premises on or before 31st December 2016. They gave a solemn undertaking to the court to that effect. However, contrary to the undertaking, the applicants continued to occupy the premises even after the deadline. More than one year after the deadline, and almost 21 years after the eviction decree, the applicants filed Notice of Motion No. 44 of 2017 seeking to set aside the consent terms and the order dated 19th January 2006, and to have the appeal heard on merits. The court considered whether such an application could be entertained. The court held that the consent terms were binding and had been acted upon. The applicants had violated their undertaking to the court, which amounts to contempt. The application was filed after a gross delay of 12 years and was an abuse of the process of the court. The court dismissed the notice of motion with costs of Rs. 25,000 payable to the respondent.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Consent Terms - Binding Nature - Consent terms accepted by the court and acted upon cannot be unilaterally set aside - The applicants who gave an undertaking to vacate the suit premises by 31st December 2016 and breached it cannot be permitted to resile from the consent terms after 12 years - Held that the notice of motion is an abuse of the process of the court (Paras 1-4). B) Contempt of Court - Breach of Undertaking - Violation of solemn undertaking given to the court amounts to contempt - The applicants continued to occupy the suit premises despite undertaking to vacate by 31st December 2016 - Held that such conduct cannot be condoned and the application is liable to be dismissed (Paras 1-4). C) Limitation - Laches - Delay of 12 years in challenging consent terms - The applicants waited until after the deadline for vacating the premises had passed to file the notice of motion - Held that the application is barred by laches and delay (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the consent terms dated 19th January 2006 and the order passed in terms thereof can be set aside at the instance of the applicants who have violated the undertaking given to the court.
Final Decision
Notice of Motion No.44 of 2017 is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000 payable to the respondent.
Law Points
- Consent terms binding on parties
- Undertaking to court cannot be violated
- Abuse of process of court
- No jurisdiction to set aside consent terms after acceptance
- Laches and delay
