pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.1262 OF 2007 M/s.Elektronic Lab. & Others ..Plaintiffs V/s. Mr.Jinofer Bhujwala & Ors. ..Defendants Mr.C.D.Abuwala i/b. M/s. Dave & Co. for the Plaintiffs Mr. Arun Mehta i/b.Akshar Law for the Defendant No.1 Mr.U.D.Mehta i/b. M/s. Mulla & Mulla C.B.C. for Defendant No.2 Mr.S. Shamim i/b. Shamim & Co. for the Defendant No.3 CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 15TH OCTOBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. The suit is disposed of in terms of the consent terms signed by the plaintiffs and defendant nos.1 and 3 and their advocates. taken on record and marked “X” 2. The engrossed copy of the consent terms which have been taken on record and marked X have been signed by the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 and their advocates. The defendant no.3 and his advocate have signed the said consent terms, but on a separate white copy of the said consent terms. This is because an e-mail of the said consent terms was forwarded to him at Chennai. He has therefore signed the white copy made from the said e-mail message. The defendant no.3 was to proceed abroad the next day. Therefore the engrossed copy could not be sent to him in time. The advocate of defendant No.3 has identified the signature of defendant no.3 and confirmed that the defendant no.3 has signed the same. The defendant No. 3 undertakes to sign the engrossed copy if necessary and if called upon to do so. The white copy has not been signed by the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and their advocates. 3. The white copy was forwarded as the attachment, which in turn was made by scanning the engrossed copy. The white copy is taken on record and marked “X-1”. The parties are at liberty to obtain xerox copies of both the sets of the above consent terms. 4. The suit as against defendant no.2 does not survive as in any event no reliefs have been sought against defendant no.2. 5. Refund as per rules.