1 In the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. SUIT NO. 1311 OF 1983 The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay. ..Plaintiffs. v/s. Diwakar Engineers Ltd & Anr. ..Defts. ------ U. J. Makhija a/w Parag Khandhar i/b Mulla & Mulla for plaintiff. Ms. Johari Ara Sarkhot i/b R. V. Govilkar for deft. no.1. -------- CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARNI, J. DATE : 30 th November 2009. P. C. : 1. On 3rd November 2009 the matter was adjourned so as to submit a report on the outcome of the proposal for settlement forwarded by the defendant no.1. My attention is invited by Mr. Makhija to letter dated 13th August 2009 under which the defts. forwarded their proposal for settlement in the sum of Rs.1.28 lac as principal and Rs. 1.28 as interest and stated that they would pay the amount in 5 equal installments by post dated cheques. Shri. Makhija states that the Board and appropriate committees of the board have taken a decision to accept this proposal. Accordingly, defendants will have to make payment. After the matter was heard for some time, it was agreed that if the defendants make this payment in 5 equal installments from today the decree shall be marked as satisfied. It is stated that the 1st defendant would hand over the post dated 1 cheques so as to make payment and first of such cheques would be handed over to the plaintiff on or before 10th of January 2010. Needless to state that the entire sum shall be paid in 5 equal instalments commending from 10th January 2010 and any deficit may be made good in the last installment. The total sum shall be Rs. 2.56 lacs. After all cheques are encashed the decree to be marked as satisfied. In default of handing over the post dated cheques or even in the event of dishonour of the first post dated cheque there shall be a decree as prayed for as against the defendants and the plaintiff shall thereafter be entitled to execute it in accordance with law. The suit is decreed in these terms. The refund of court fees shall be as per rules. Needless to state that since the defendant no.2 has not filed affidavit nor are the plaint averments and document disputed the suit claim is also decreed against the defendant no.2. (S. C. Dharmadhikari, J.)