1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 3075 OF 2009 Anita Chandrakant Desai ..Plaintiff Vs. Vishwas Navalkar and Anr. ..Defendants .... Shri. Chetan Kapadia i/b Menon and Associates for Plaintiff Shri. Amit Borkar for Defendants .... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 8th December, 2009 P.C.: 1. Shri. Kapadia and Shri. Borkar appearing for Plaintiff and Defendants respectively, tendered consent terms. Both state that these consent terms are signed by advocates after discussions with their respective clients. Both Plaintiff and Defendants have confirmed the agreement recorded therein and have no objection to this Court taking these terms on record and making an order in furtherance thereof. 2. This is a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act, 1963. In such circumstances, even if these consent terms are entered into, signed 2 and filed in Court and order is made in furtherance thereof, the issue of right, title and interest of the parties to the premises in question, is not involved and therefore, not adjudicated by the Court. The Court has taken the terms on record on the premise that both sides agree that the essential ingredients for such suit are satisfied in this case. 3. Consent terms record that physical possession was with the Plaintiff and therefore, it is being handed over by the Defendants to the Plaintiff. 4. Such being the arrangement and the terms duly signed and filed in Court, it is expected of the police machinery to take due cognizance thereof and close all criminal proceedings. If any charge sheet is filed in any competent Court, the same shall also not be proceeded further by the competent Court. 5. Consent terms are taken and marked `X ’ for identification. There will be an order in terms of consent terms. 6. This order is passed in presence of the Defendants and son of the Plaintiff who is present in Court. 7. Suit disposed of accordingly. 8. Refund of Court-fees as per Rules. S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.