1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5186 OF 2007 Rajendra Vithal Kapote .. Petitioner Versus Vasudeo Ramdas Borkar .. Respondent Mr.G.S.Godbole for petitioner Ms.Geeta Mulekar for respondents CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 16th January 2008 P.C. . This is a petition filed challenging the order passed by the Executing Court on 28th June 2007 directing that the petitioner - judgement debtor should carry out repair work as per the consent terms between the parties filed in this Court within fifteen days failing which it proceeded to issue warrant under Order 21 Rule 37 of the C.P.C. as prayed by the decree holder. 2 2. It is not necessary to refer to the facts in details. Suffice it to state that the parties do not dispute the execution of consent terms and order made in terms thereof by this Court. Parties do not dispute that the Commissioner’s report Exh.85 was filed which showed that certain works needed to be carried out at site. The Executing Court was called upon to pass appropriate orders and directions so as to compel judgement debtor to abide by the terms filed in this Court failing which the Court should pass appropriate orders including detaining him in civil prison. 3. After this matter was argued for some time, both sides agree that the Regular Darkhast proceedings commenced vide Regular Darkhast No.99 of 2000 shall come to an end and the decree would be marked fully satisfied, upon deposit by petitioner judgement debtor of a sum of Rs.60,000/- with the Executing Court within a 3 period of three months from today. If the amount is deposited within the stipulated period, then, not only the order below Exh.83 dated 28th June 2007 would stand quashed and set aside but the said decree would be marked satisfied and regular Darkhast No.99 of 2000 disposed of without any further orders and directions from the Executing Court. Needless to state that on deposit the decree holder is allowed to withdraw the same but it is made clear that the said deposit and withdrawal would be in full and final settlement of all claims under the consent order as also the subject decree and nothing further would be due and payable by the judgement debtor nor would he be required to carry out repair works at site. 4. Needless to state further that in default, the impugned order stands and petition would be dismissed and all consequences in law shall follow. Petition disposed of with the aforesaid directions. 4 (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)