1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Appeal Lodging No.405 of 2007 In Notice of Motion No.3486 of 2006 In Suit No.2900 of 2006 Pandu Dasu Shetty & anr. Appellants Vs. M/s. Motiram Tolaram & ors. Respondents Mr.S.V.Sadavarte for appellants. Mr.Vireh Shetty with Mr.Chirag Mody i/b. DSK Legal for respondent no.1. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. February 4, 2010. P.C. 1. In Suit No.2900 of 2006, Notice of Motion No.3486 of 2006 was taken out. The present appellants are the defendant nos.2 and 3 in the said Suit. The plaints on the one hand and defendant nos.4 to 8 on the other arrived at a settlement and reduced in writing the settlement terms in the form of “Consent Terms”. Notice of Motion No.3486 of 2006 listed out the Consent Terms between the plaintiffs and defendant nos.4 to 8 on 30/11/2006. The Suit was decreed in terms of the Consent Terms and the order read as under 2 “Suit as between the plaintiff and defendant nos.4 to 8 is disposed of in terms of the Consent Terms signed by the parties and their advocates, tendered in court, taken on record and marked `X” for identification. It is clarified that the consent terms and this order will not in any manner affect the rights of defendant nos.1 to 3.” 2. As per Section 96(3) of CPC no appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of the parties. Terms. This appeal is by defendant nos.2 and 3 who were not party to the Consent Terms. 3. Mr.Sadavarte has invited out attention to clause 6 of the Consent Terms and submitted that the said clause is likely to cause prejudice to the rights and interests of the appellants in their suit which is pending i.e. Suit No.951 of 1988. Clause 6 of the Consent Terms reads as under: “6. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 claim to be in possession of the Suit property and have filed Suit No.951 of 1988 in this Hon’ble Court which is pending. Hence Defendant Nos.5 to 8 will not be in a position to hand over possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs on 3 a decree being passed by this Hon’ble Court on these Consent Terms. Subject to this, and upon the plaintiffs agreeing to indemnify and hereby indemnifying Defendant Nos.5 to 8 against all actions, claims and demands and consequences thereof from or by Defendant Nos.1 to 3 herein against Defendant Nos.5 to 8 in respect of the suit property, Defendant Nos.5 to 8 have agreed to absolutely assign, convey and transfer all their ownership right, title and interest in the suit property to the plaintiffs on as is where is basis.” The clause itself is self explanatory and the impugned decree has clearly stated that the settlement between the plaintiffs and defendant nos.4 to 8 shall in no manner affect the rights of defendant nos.1 to 3 and, therefore, there is no reason to entertain this appeal. 4. The appeal is hereby dismissed. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)