1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Notice of Motion No.3836 of 2009 IN Suit No.2865 of 2008 Laila Abbasali Sheriffi & ors. ... Plaintiffs v/s. Ajabnaaz Lokzadeh & ors. ... Defendants Mr.D.H. Mehta with Ms.Simeen Shaikh and Ms.Andrea Lobo i/by M/s.S.K. Srivastav & Co. for Plffs. Mr.M.S. Kadu for Deft.Nos.1, 4, 5 & 6. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 23rd March, 2010 P.C. : 1.Parties are relatives. The Suit is for administration of the estate of the husband of Plaintiff No.1 and the father of Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. Defendant Nos.1 to 6 are the sisters-in-law of Plaintiff No.1. They are stated to be in possession of the estate of the husband and Plaintiff No.1. After the filing of the Suit, the parties were referred to mediation. The parties entered into certain Consent Terms before the Mediator Ms.Rajani Iyyar, when they were represented by their Advocates. 2.However, Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are stated to have 2 backed out of the Consent Terms and hence the Plaintiffs have not obtained their share as agreed to by and between the parties. The Plaintiffs have, therefore, taken out this Notice of Motion for recording a settlement in terms of the Consent Terms signed by the parties before the mediator. 3.The Advocate on behalf of Defendant Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 states that Defendant Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 have no objection to the Consent Terms. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are stated to have backed out of the Consent Terms. The Notice of Motion is served upon Defendant No.2 at the address mentioned in the Plaint. The packet sent to the address of Defendant No.2 through courier has been returned with the endorsement party shifted . Thereafter Defendant No.2 was sought to be personally served by the Clerk of the Plaintiffs Advocates in the presence of the 1st Plaintiff at the address mentioned in the Plaint. Defendant No.1 refused to accept the service. The covering letter of the Advocates as well as the returned envelope have been annexed to the Affidavit of service of the Plaintiffs dated 2.12.2009. The service upon Defendant No.2 is complete. 4.Defendant No.3 was also sought to be served at the address mentioned in the Plaint. The covering letter with the Notice of Motion and the Affidavit-in-support 3 annexed thereto, was sent to her address mentioned in the Plaint. The covering letter is marked as Exhibit-A to the Affidavit of service of the Plaintiffs dated 15.3.2010. The packets which were returned have been sent to her new address in Iran under RPAD & UPC, which was given by the Advocate for Defendant Nos.1 to 6 (which included her Advocate). The four packets are shown to have been sent to Iran by speed post and have been returned. One packet has been sent under Certificate of Posting. The Certificate of Posting is annexed as Exhibit-B to the Affidavit of service dated 2.12.2009. The service upon Defendant No.3 is complete. 5.The Notice of Motion is, therefore, prosecuted against Defendant Nos.1 to 6. The Plaintiffs do not press the Notice of Motion against Defendant Nos.7 to 9. The Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). It is also made absolute in terms of prayer (b) with regard to property Nos.1, 2 and 3 mentioned therein. 6.No order as to costs. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)