1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1051 OF 2009 Smt.Anandibai Shantilal Challani & others Petitioners Versus Sarang Sugandhilal Bora & others Respondents Mr.V.S.Bedre, advocate for petitioners. Mr.R.R.Mantri, advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 11 th November, 2009. P.C.: 1 Heard Shri V.S.Bedre, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri R.R.Mantri, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2. 2 Out of 24 defendants, plaintiffs entered into compromise with defendants no.1 to 21 and requested the Court to record compromise and decide suit in terms of compromise. 3 By way of settlement between plaintiffs and defendants no.1 to 21, plot admeasuring 1680 square meters earmarked for amenities is agreed to be retained by plaintiffs; and defendants no.1 to 21 have accepted the 2 proposal in respect of entitlement of the plaintiffs to claim the aforesaid property. Defendants no.22 to 24 claimed that they have 30% share in the disputed plot and as such, settlement, being collusive in nature, cannot be recorded. Considering the objection raised by defendants no.22 to 24, the trial Court refused to record the compromise. 4 It cannot be said that by virtue of settlement, claim in the suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise. The agreement or compromise must be capable of being embodied in a decree. The trial Court found that the compromise is not of such a nature which is capable of being embodied in a decree. The view taken by the trial Court cannot be said to be irrational. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for. 5 Writ Petition stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp105109