IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5366 OF 2009 ............................................................. Office Notes,Office memorandum of Coram, appearances,Court's Court's or orders or directions Judge's orders & Registrar's orders. ............................................................. Mr.Jayesh Bhatt for the petitioner None for the respondents CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 29,2009 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs. By the impugned order, notice of motion no.1388 of 2003 has been dismissed by the trial court. 2 The first prayer in the notice of motion was for a direction to the Sheriff of Bombay to execute the interim order dated 20 th February 2002 passed during the pendency of the suit. The second prayer is for direction for placing the suit for final hearing. 3 It is not in dispute that in terms of 1 the consent terms between the parties to the suit, the suit has been disposed of. After the suit is disposed of, now the plaintiffs cannot seek to enforce the interim order which was to operate only till the disposal of the suit. 4 If the case of the petitioners is that the consent terms are not implemented or not acted upon, it is for the petitioners to adopt appropriate remedy. The second prayer in the notice of motion is that the suit be fixed for final hearing. The said prayer could not have been granted as the suit admittedly stands disposed of in terms of the consent terms. Hence, no interference can be made in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, rejection of this writ petition will not prevent the parties from adopting appropriate proceedings on the basis of the consent decree passed in the suit. 4 Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. JUDGE 2 3