The Court enforced the mediated settlement by directing withdrawal and closure of the pending suit.

The petitioner filed a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, accompanied by a miscellaneous case, against four respondents.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties participated in mediation, which culminated in a written settlement dated 8 September 2026 signed by the petitioner and all four respondents.

Under Clause 3 of the settlement, the respondents agreed to withdraw O.S. No. 17 of 2026 along with Judicial Miscellaneous Case No. 79 of 2026, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bishnupur.

The said suit had been instituted on 1 April 2026, after the filing of the revision petition and miscellaneous case on 17 December 2025 and after notice had been issued and served on the respondents.

The parties, through counsel, jointly requested disposal of the revision petition and miscellaneous case in terms of the mediated settlement.

1. Whether the civil revision petition and the connected miscellaneous case should be disposed of in terms of the written settlement reached through mediation.

2. Whether the trial court should be directed to close O.S. No. 17 of 2026 and all connected Judicial Miscellaneous Cases upon recording their withdrawal.

3. Whether any rights claimed by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the said suit would be affected by its withdrawal.

The Court applied the principle that a settlement voluntarily entered into and signed by all parties through mediation may be acted upon by the Court, particularly where the parties jointly seek disposal of pending proceedings in accordance with the settlement.

It further applied the procedural principle that a suit may be withdrawn and consequentially closed by the court in which it is pending, while clarifying that withdrawal does not extinguish independent rights that may otherwise be asserted before an appropriate forum.

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to give effect to the mediated settlement and issue consequential directions to the subordinate court.

No separate statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly cited in the order.

The Court found that mediation had successfully resolved the dispute and that the settlement terms had been reduced to writing and signed by the sole revision petitioner and all four respondents.

Since counsel for both sides jointly requested disposal in accordance with those terms, the Court accepted the request.

Because the respondents had agreed to withdraw the subsequently instituted suit, the Court directed the trial court to record the withdrawal and close that suit together with all connected Judicial Miscellaneous Cases.

The Court further ensured that the order would operate irrespective of whether counsel formally produced it before the trial court, upon its upload on the High Court’s official website.

At the same time, it preserved any independent rights of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, leaving them free to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent forum.

The trial court was directed to close O.S. No. 17 of 2026 and all connected Judicial Miscellaneous Cases by recording their withdrawal, irrespective of whether the order was produced before it by counsel.

Any rights of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were expressly preserved for determination before an appropriate court or forum in accordance with law.