1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2977 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2105 OF 2009 BATA India .. Plaintiffs Versus M/s.Orient Investments and Ors. .. Defendants Mr.P.K.Samdani, Senior Advocate with Aditya Khandeparkar i/b. Khaitan and Jayakar for plaintiffs Mr.Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate with Suhas Patil i/b. Navdeep Vora and Associates for defendant No.1 Mr.Harinder Toor with Dhiren Nanda for defendant Nos. to 5. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 4th September 2009. P.C.: 1] In a suit which is filed under section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act, alleging forcible dispossession, this motion is moved for interim reliefs. The matter was fully argued and was placed for orders today. 2] In the morning session it was stated that parties are negotiating and discussing an overall settlement so that plaintiffs will have some time to continue in the premises and, thereupon, they would vacate without any 2 further extensions. The period of the further occupation was being discussed. On this statement the matter was kept back in the afternoon session. 3] In the afternoon session parties have tendered consent terms which are duly signed on behalf of the defendant No.1 firm by the partner. Defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are all claiming to be tenants of the suit premises, whereas first defendant is the owner. Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 have duly instructed their Advocates to place their signatures on the consent terms. First defendant has been represented by a partner who has duly signed the consent terms so also his Advocate. 4] For the plaintiffs, their District Manager who is duly authorised has signed the consent terms. The terms record that the seal on the suit premises would be opened. The plaintiffs can use and occupy so also carry on business from the suit premises until 31st December 2010. Plaintiffs will carry on business on the terms and conditions stated in clause 1 of the Consent Terms. In clause 3 of the consent terms, the parties have stated that this arrangement would not be construed as 3 conferring any rights in the property nor can the plaintiffs claim tenancy or similar such arrangements in respect of suit premises. Upon plaintiffs being allowed to carry on business, they will not alienate, transfer or part with possession or induct any third party therein. The premises are commercial and, therefore, the parties are agreeable that the plaintiffs themselves will carry on the business therefrom without any interruption hindrance or obstacle from any parties. 5] Undertakings of the plaintiffs in clauses 2 and 3 are accepted. Similarly, defendants undertake that they will not in any manner prevent, obstruct or interfere with the plaintiff’s possession in the suit premises till 31st December 2010. They will allow the plaintiffs to carry on business as usual but on the terms set out in clause 1 till 31st December 2010. Undertakings of both sides are accepted. The concerned police staton is directed to remove the seal from the premises so also allow the plaintiff to carry on business as per agreed terms. 6] It is stated that there is nobody else in possession of the suit premises and the plaintiffs would be put in peaceful and vacant 4 possession thereof on the execution of these terms and an order being made by this Court. Since both sides have amicably resolved their disputes and that plaintiffs are not pressing their serious allegations of forcible dispossession, it is agreed that the parties will request appropriate criminal court to close the proceedings. The appropriate Criminal Court to take cognisance of this request and pass such orders as are permissible in law. Both sides withdraw the allegations made against each other in the light of these terms. 7] In the light of the aforesaid agreement which is duly recorded in the terms and having satisfied myself that the plaintiffs would be placed in possession and allowed to continue to carry on business therefrom till 31st December 2010, the terms are taken on record and marked “X” for identification. Order in terms of consent terms. Suit is also disposed of accordingly. No costs. Refund as per rules. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. Notice of motion also does not survive in view of consent terms. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)