*1* s.2657.09.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.2657 OF 2009 with NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3690 OF 2009 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3997 OF 2009 Orbit Corporation Ltd. and another. ..Plaintiffs -Versus- Mal Pata Gohil @ Malapata Gohil and others. ..Defendants .......... Kunal Cheema, for the Plaintiffs. Akshay Gosavi, for the Defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, 5(ii), 6, 7, 11 and 12. Reshma K.P. Ravi i/b K.P.Ravi & Company, for the Defendant Nos.8, 9 and 10(a). .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 26th October, 2010. P.C. 1 In pursuance of the order dated 21.10.2010, the affidavits of witnesses who identified the thumb impressions of the Defendant Nos.8 and 9 are filed. It is stated that the consent terms have been fully explained and interpreted to the Defendant Nos.8 and 9 by the Advocate engaged by them. 2 It is in such circumstances and considering the affidavits of witnesses that the consent terms are held to be binding on the parties including the Defendant Nos.8 and 9. 3 It is stated that widow of Defendant No.5(i) Smt.Ruchira Chandrakant Sawant could not attend the Court today but she has orally confirmed the terms. *2* s.2657.09.sxw 4 Mr.Cheema, states that the original shed No.5 was stated to be held by Chandrakant D. Sawant and Gopichand D. Sawant. Chandrakant is husband of Ruchira whereas Gopichand is her brother-in- law. The Plaintiffs would reserve one tenement as per the consent terms to be allotted either to Ruchira or Gopichand and that is a matter they must sort out interse. 5 Let the affidavit of Ruchira be filed confirming her oral statement that the consent terms are acceptable to her. If such an affidavit is filed on or before 15.11.2010, the consent terms as between the Plaintiffs and the original Defendant Nos.5(i) and 5(ii) would be held to be binding on both the Plaintiffs and the widow of Chandrakant and his brother Gopichand. If the said Ruchira does not confirm this consent terms, so also, if she is aggrieved by the fact that the premises in the newly constructed building have been exclusively allotted to Gopichand, then, it would be open for her to institute such proceedings as permissible under the law against the Plaintiffs and Gopichand. 6 The statement tendered on the last occasion was erroneously marked “X-1”. The same shall now be marked as “X-2”. The corrections be carried out accordingly. 7 The suit is disposed of in the light of the consent terms leaving open the appropriate remedies for the Plaintiffs to proceed against those who are not parties to the consent terms. All contentions of the Plaintiffs and such parties in that behalf are kept open. 8 In view of disposal of the suit, the Notice of Motions do not survive and the same are also disposed of. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)