1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3428 of 2009 IN MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.22 of 1999 Menaka B. Bhatia ... Petitioner versus Bhagwan Dilip Boral & Anr ... Respondents ... Mr.S.K.Jain i/b M/s.Gordhandas & Fozdar for the petitioner Mr.Devrat Dhankar i/b R.K. Associates for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 25th March 2010 P.C. 1. By this motion, the plaintiff seeks certain directions in relation to the sale of the flat. 2. In Miscellaneous Petition No.22 of 1999, a decree was passed on 14th March 2000 by this Court. Clause nos.(n) & (r) of the consent decree reads as follows: 2 (n) All the parties agree that sale of the flat be completed within two months i.e on or before 30th April 2000. The said period can be extended by the consent of parties if need arises. (r) Decree in accordance with the Consent Terms. 3. According to the applicant (original respondent no.1) the original plaintiff is not co-operating with the sale of the flat. Certain directions were issued by this court on 12th February 2009 and on 1st July 2009 in Notice of Motion No.3555 of 2008. Despite these directions, according to the applicant, it has not been possible to sell the flat on account of obstructionist attitude of the original petitioner. 4. Perusal of clause (r) of the consent terms dated 14th March 2000 clearly show that a decree has been passed in the suit. Clause (n) of the consent terms is an executable portion of that decree. In the circumstances, applicant is free to file an execution application. 5. With these observations, motion is disposed of. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)