1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. FIRST APPEAL NO.462 OF 1993. FIRST APPEAL NO.462 OF 1993. FIRST APPEAL NO.462 OF 1993. WITH WITH WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO.17694 OF 1993 CROSS OBJECTION NO.17694 OF 1993 CROSS OBJECTION NO.17694 OF 1993 AND AND AND CROSS OBJECTION NO.166 OF 1993. CROSS OBJECTION NO.166 OF 1993. CROSS OBJECTION NO.166 OF 1993. Ramesh Narhar Jakhadi : Appellant. versus Smt.Kalindi Gopal Thakur & ors. : Respondents. Mr.R.A.Thorat for Mr.V.A.Thorat for the appellant Mr.Prafulla B.Shah for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr.Pramod N. Joshi for Respondent No.5. CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE,J. CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE,J. CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE,J. DATED : 9th March 2005. DATED : 9th March 2005. DATED : 9th March 2005. ORAL ORDER ORAL ORDER ORAL ORDER 1. The appellant is original plaintiff. His suit for specific performance was dismissed. 2 2 2 Respondent No.5 is the present owner of the property. Since he has purchased the property from Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in this appeal. Therefore, the contesting parties are the appellant and Respondent No.5. They have settled the dispute amicably. They have filed the consent terms. Both the appellant and Respondent No.5 are present in Court. They admitted that they have signed the consent terms after understanding and reading the contents thereof. They admit their signatures. Their respective advocates have also signed the consent terms. The consent terms are taken on record and marked "X" for identification. The consent terms are accepted. In view of the consent terms the appeal stands disposed of. Since the contest was mainly between the appellant and Respondent No.5, the cross objections of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 do not survive and they are accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. [D.G.DESHPANDE] 09/03/2005 JUDGE.