1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2010 IN JUDGE'S ORDER NO. 157 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 189 OF 2000 Akar Laminators Ltd. .. ... Appellant. Versus Videocon Leasing and Industrial Finance Ltd. .. ... Respondents. Mr. M. P. Vashi i/by M/s. M. P. Vashi & Associates for the Appellants. Mr. Kishore Jain with Mr. P. V. Shah for the Respondents. CORAM : F. I. REBELLO & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 30TH APRIL, 2010 P. C.: The consent terms were filed between the respondents and the appellant and an order came to be passed in terms of the consent terms on 9th November, 2001. 2. The respondents herein thereafter moved for amendment of the cause title of the plaintiff as there was a change in the name and that has been allowed by the impugned order dated 24th June, 2009. 2 3. While passing the order, the learned Judge observed that Clauses 1 and 3 of the consent terms would show that there is a decree of the court and in these circumstances there can be no decree which could be passed on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Counsel found fault with the expression “Decree” contending that the order dated 9th November, 2001 is not a decree. 4. It is not necessary for us to go into the controversy as a decree is merely a drawing up of the order of the Court passed on 9th November, 2001. We are informed that now that decree in fact has already been drawn up. Considering the above, nothing further survives in this appeal except to reiterate that whatever objections the appellant herein may have to the execution or otherwise of the decree or order of 9th November, 2001 can be raised by it which it is entitled to in law in any appropriate proceedings. 5. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (F.I. REBELLO,J.) Sd/- (A. A. SAYED, J.)