{1} s916-09.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.916 OF 2009 Asif Raza Khan .. Plaintiff versus SMS Construction Co & Anr .. Defendants Mr.M.A.Saiyed a/w B.S.Nayak for the plaintiff. Mr.D.U.Siroya for defendant No.1. Mr.D.D.Mehta i/by D.M.Legal Associates for defendant No.2. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 13th December 2011. P.C.: . In the suit for specific performance of an Agreement for Sale, the plaintiff has accepted that the said Agreement dated 13th February 2004 between him and defendant No.1 has been validly terminated by a termination notice dated 19th October 2005. In these circumstances, he does not insist on specific performance of this Agreement for Sale, but is satisfied with the refund of the amount that is paid in pursuance of this Agreement. The defendant No.1 has agreed to refund to the plaintiff the sum of Rs.36 lakhs and a pay order to that effect has been drawn in favour of the plaintiffs. 2} Both, plaintiff and defendant No.1 are agreeable to this {2} s916-09.doc arrangement. They or their authorised representatives are present in the Court and stated that the consent terms correctly and properly record the mutual settlement between the parties. They are familiar and can read and write in English language. They confirm their signatures below the terms as well. Equally, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 had agreed that the subject flat is owned by defendant No.1 and it may be sold by defendant No.1 to a third party other than defendant No.2. Part payment in pursuance of a Agreement dated 1st November 2010 and the confirmation thereof by 12th November 2010 must also come to an end. The amount paid thereunder by defendant No.2 to defendant No.1 is agreed to be refunded to the defendant No.2. In such circumstances, both sides confirm that the flat continues to be the property of defendant No.1 and he is an owner thereof. All claims in relation to this flat/immovable property are given up by both, plaintiff and defendant No. 2. Defendant No.2 is also present in the Court and he has signed his consent terms. He confirms the signature and the arrangement between the parties and states that terms which are reduced into writing in English language had been read over by him and he confirms the arrangements and has no objection thereto. Thus his signature and confirmation is also reiterated. In these circumstances, that I am {3} s916-09.doc satisfied that there is no impediment in taking these consent terms on record. The terms do not contravene any provisions of law nor are they contrary to public policy. 3} The consent terms dated 13th December 2011 are taken on record and marked “X” for identification. The power of attorney of defendant No.1 is present in the Court. He has identified the signature of defendant No.1 as also himself in some of the pages of the consent terms where corrections are made. A copy of the Power of Attorney in favour of the Power of Attorney Holder is taken on record and marked “X-1” for identification. 4} There will be an order in terms of the consent terms. The suit is accordingly disposed off. There will be refund of Court fees as per the rules. 5} Notice of motion for interim reliefs does not survive in the light of the disposal of the suit. All interlocutory orders shall stand vacated. {4} s916-09.doc (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)