IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1628 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2723 OF 2007 Pramodkumar Makharia ..Plaintiff Vs. Laxmidevi Makharia & Ors. ..Defendants Mr. P. V. Shah for the Plaintiffs Mr. Kamal Khatta a/w A. S. Khan for the Applicant CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE: 15TH OCTOBER, 2009 P.C. : 1. On 5th December 2007, a decree was passed by this Court in terms of Consent Terms which were signed by the parties and their Advocates in Suit No.2723 of 2007. Subsequently, a Judge’s Order was taken for permission to execute the decree passed in the Suit before the sealing of the decree under Rule 314 of the High Court (O.S.) Rules. While passing an order in terms of the Judge’s Order, this Court, by its order dated 22nd April 2009, clarified that the hearing of the Judge’s Order had proceeded on the basis that the averments contained in the Affidavit in support are denied. The Prothonotary and Senior Master has passed the following order on 18th July 2009; “Defendant Nos. 2, 3 & 4 have given an undertaking to pay the liabilities of the bank. However, CIT does not provide for a remedy if Defendant Nos.2, 3 & 4 fail to discharged their liability. Hence, the present decree to the extend of liability undertaken by Defendant Nos. 2, 3 & 4 cannot be enforced. Hence extension Application for enforcing those liability not maintainable.” 2. The order passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master is manifestly erroneous. The Prothonotary and Senior Master is duty bound to draw up the decree in terms of the Consent Terms and it is not open to the Prothonotary and Senior Master to go behind the Consent Decree. As a matter of fact, it would be impermissible even for the executing Court to do so. In the circumstances, the order of the Prothonotary and Senior Master dated 18th July 2009 is set aside and the direction dated 22nd April 2009 issued in Judge’s Order No.126 of 2009 is maintained. However, it would be necessary to clarify at this stage, that it has not become necessary for the Court to consider prayer clauses (b), (c) and (d) to the Chamber Summons, which are not pressed in view of the directions issued to the Prothonotary and Senior Master. 3. The Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). On the request of Counsel appearing for Defendant No.2, it is clarified that, in view of the aforesaid directions that have been issued, it has been not been necessary for the Court to go into the allegations made in the Affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J)