: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.210 OF 2009 Dr.Gokulchand Mammraj Agawal & anr. ... Appellants V/s. Deepak Gokulchand Agrawal ... Respondent Mr.A.M. Saraogi for Appellants Mr.Anil Agarwal for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr.Deepak Agarwal for Resp. No.3 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: MARCH 18, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appeal has been preferred against the order passed on 15.11.2008 by which the consent terms have been accepted by the trial Court. The decree has been passed by the trial Court in terms of the consent terms. The trial Court has, while accepting the consent terms, observed that these consent terms were not binding on defendant No.2 i.e. the appellant herein. In my view, therefore, the appellant is protected by the order passed by the trial Court in exercise of her independent rights, if any, that she may have with respect to the suit property. 2. The learned advocate for the appellant further points out that in clause 5 of the consent terms although defendant No.1 has agreed that he would remove himself as well as his family (wife and child) with all their belongings. At the time the consent : 2 : terms were signed, the child was not born. In fact, the appellant herein was pregnant and gave birth to the child only on 25.12.2007. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 concedes this position. 3. Appeal is dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Civil application No.810 of 2009 also stands dismissed.