1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3386 OF 2009 Kamlakar Mahadev Kamankar & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs Gajanan Mahadev Kamankar & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri Pankaj T. Das for the Petitioners. Smt. V.V. Thorat for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for Resondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. A notice for final disposal has been issued on the earlier date. A challenge in this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 7th January, 2009. 3. The 2nd to 4th Petitioners have filed a suit against the Respondents to which the 1st Petitioner is the 4th Defendant. The suit is inter alia for a declaration that a Deed of Relinguishment dated 7th March, 2008 has been obtained from the Plaintiffs by practicing fraud and the said document being void is not binding on the Plaintiffs. In the said suit, consent terms were filed between the 2nd to 4th Respondents (Plaintiffs) 2 and the 1st Petitioner ( 4th Defendant). By the consent terms, the 1st Petitioner agreed that the said Deed dated 7th March, 2008 will stand cancelled to the extent of his share. An application was made by the Petitioners at Ehibit-38 praying that the consent decree be drawn in terms of the compromise. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the learned trial Judge has completely misread the decision of this Court in the case of Harshadbai Shah & Anr. v. Rani Kamla Raje & Ors., [1988 Mh.L.J. 874 ]. He submitted that a consent decree could have always been passed between the Plaintiffs and the 4th Defendant. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 ( Original 1st to 3rd Defendants ) submitted that the decree will affect the said Respondents and on the basis of the decree, if passed, revenue entries will be made in 7/12 extract and the revenue records. Her submissions is that the Respondents will be affected by such entries. She submitted that the suit is ready for hearing and instead of recording a compromise, the trial Court be directed to dispose of the suit. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions. There is no dispute that the Petitioners have signed the consent terms. Even otherwise, there is no reason to discard the consent terms. Therefore, 3 there was no ground to decline to pass a consent decree between the Plaintiffs and the 4th Defendant on the basis of the consent terms. It is obvious that such a decree will not bind the Respondents and it will be always open for the Respondents to raise a contention that the Deed dated 7th March, 2008 is valid and subsisting and is binding on the original Plaintiffs. Even if the revenue entries are made in the revenue records on the basis of the consent decree, the same will not bind the Respondents. 7. The trial Court has committed an error by rejecting the application at Exhibit-38. Hence, the Petition must succeed. Accordingly, I pass following order. (a) Subject to what is observed above, the impugned order dated 7th January, 2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. (b) The application at Exhibit-38 is allowed and the trial Court is directed to draw compromise decree between the Plaintiffs and the 4th Defendant on the basis of the consent terms at Exhibit-37. (c) It is made clear that the compromise decree will not bind the Respondents and it will be open for them to raise a contention that the Deed dated 7th March, 4 2008 is valid and subsisting and continues to bind the Plaintiffs. (d) The Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. (e) The hearing of the suit is expedited. (A.S.OKA, J) ash