Saurabh Suri & Anr. vs. Deepti Suri & Anr.
Original PDF →Facts
The appellants, Saurabh Suri & Anr., filed an appeal against an interlocutory order dated 17.10.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge. This order had allowed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the CPC, filed by Respondent No. 1 (Deepti Suri) during the pendency of a suit. The appellants sought to record a Settlement Agreement dated 11.08.2025, arrived at before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, and requested the Court to dispose of the appeal in terms of this settlement. This included a direction for Respondent No. 2 (GAIL India Ltd., the tenant) to transfer pending rents, along with GST at 18%, to the appellants' bank accounts. The contesting parties admitted that the suit had been settled.
Held
The Court held that the present appeal, filed against an interlocutory order dated 17.10.2023, has been rendered infructuous because the main suit between the parties has been settled. The Court noted that the Settlement Agreement dated 11.08.2025, arrived at by the parties, forms the basis for the disposal of the appeal. Consequently, the interlocutory order dated 17.10.2023, which was passed during the pendency of the suit, ceases to have effect in light of the settlement. The Court did not explicitly address the appellants' specific request for the transfer of rents and GST, but rather disposed of the appeal as infructuous due to the settlement of the underlying suit. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal and any pending applications.
Key Issues
1. Whether the present appeal, filed against an interlocutory order, is rendered infructuous and liable to be disposed of in light of the settlement of the main suit between the parties, as per Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC? Petitioner's Argument: The appellants argued that since the main suit has been settled by a Settlement Agreement dated 11.08.2025, the present appeal, which arises from an interlocutory order in that suit, should be disposed of in terms of the settlement. They specifically sought directions for the transfer of pending rents and GST to their accounts. Revenue/State's Argument: The Respondent No. 2 (GAIL India Ltd.) acknowledged the settlement of the main suit and the consequent disposal of the appeal. However, it noted that the learned Single Judge had issued directions regarding rent payment in the interim order. The Court did not record any specific argument from Respondent No. 1 regarding the settlement or the interlocutory order's effect.
Sections Cited
Order XXXIX Rule 10, Order XXIII Rule 3, Section 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2025 CM APPL. 58683/2025
The present application, under Order XXIII Rule 3, read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟], has been preferred by the Appellants seeking the following reliefs:- “(a) Take on record the Settlement Agreement dated 11.08.2025 arrived at by the Parties before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and dispose off the appeal in terms thereof, including directing the Respondent No. 2 to transfer the pending rents (from May 2021- till date) along with GST @18%in the bank accounts of the Appellant No. 1 and No. 2. (b) Pass such further or other order(s) or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper considering the facts and circumstances of the case.”
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 19/09/2025 at 12:16:08
Learned counsel for the contesting parties admit that the suit already stands settled between the parties in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 11.08.2025. 3. The present Appeal has been filed against an interlocutory order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of CPC by the Respondent No. 1, during the pendency of the suit. Since the main suit has already been settled, the present Appeal is rendered infructuous and is accordingly disposed of as such.
At this stage, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 i.e. tenant/GAIL India Ltd. submits that certain directions had been issued by the Learned Single Judge through the interim order, requiring GAIL to pay the rent in a particular manner.
This Court is of the considered view that, in light of the settlement of the main suit and consequent disposal of the present Appeal, the interim order dated 17.10.2023 ceases to have effect.
Accordingly, the present Appeal, along with pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. SEPTEMBER 16, 2025/tk/va
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 19/09/2025 at 12:16:08
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.