1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4317 of 2008 IN SUIT NO.1107 OF 2006 Shree Parshwanath Builders & Anr. ...Plaintiffs Vs. Rajkumar Sureka ...Defendant Mrs.Anita Borkar with Ms. Kranti Hiwrale i/b.P.G.Lad for Plaintiffs Mr.Hemant Mehta i/b. M/s. Mehta & Co., for Defendant CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 18TH July 2009 P.C. : 1.The Plaintiff has applied for recording the compromise stated to have been agreed upon execution by and between the parties as per Exhibit-Q to the plaint and to pass the decree in terms of the said compromise. 2.The Plaintiff has been allowed to amend the plaint to annex Exhibit-Q to the plaint, the letter of the plaintiff dated 1st September, 2007 under which certain terms were agreed between the parties pending the preparation and filing of the consent terms in the above suit. The consent terms was, therefore, required to be filed. It was not filed along with the letter. The parties have not unequivocally agreed upon the terms and signed the terms. The draft consent terms 2 was sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendants. The consent terms have certain blanks required to be filled-in by the Defendants. The blanks are in terms of the registration of the document, the extension of time, the nomination of a person, time limit of the payment of the consideration by certain installments and the number of flats on the specified floors to be given by the Plaintiff to the Defendants. It is, therefore, seen that in several material aspects the consent terms was not complete. It was not even signed by the Plaintiff. It was sent to the Defendants. The Defendants returned the consent terms with certain modifications. The modifications are in respect of treating the development agreement between the parties is an agreement for sale upon payment of specified amount and equal share in the benefit of additional FSI. The Defendants, therefore, did not unconditionally accept the Plaintiff s offer. The Defendants made a counter offer. The counter offer has not been accepted. There is, therefore, no complete novatio between the parties. There is, therefore, no terms entered into between the parties, which could be referred as settlement between the parties. 3.Consequently the Notice of Motion is misconceived. The Notice of Motion is dismissed. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)