1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2539 OF 2010 Sandip S. Kalne & Ors. ....Petitioners V/s. Shahu Co-Op. Bank Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.A.S. Khandeparkar with Mr.D.H. Pawar for the Petitioners. Mr.N.N. Bhadrashete for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Heard counsel for the parties. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioners are essentially challenging the order which was passed by consent of the parties on 18.2.2010. In the first place, it is not open to the parties to challenge the order passed on the basis of the consent terms by way of Writ Petition. Secondly, the argument of the Petitioners which is founded on the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of HUDA v. Babeswar Kanhar, reported in 2004 DGLS (Soft.) 833 = 2005 (1) SCC 191, is ill-advised. We are not concerned with the ordinary situation, but are dealing with the order passed on the basis of the consent terms filed by the parties. The real question is, can the Court extend the time specified in the consent terms by the parties. More so, whether it is possible to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of 2 India to grant such relief. The answer is an emphatic No. In our opinion, the question of showing any indulgence to the Petitioners does not arise. 2. In so far as the prayer clause (b) is concerned, even the same is ill-advised, as it is not open to the Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction to direct the bank to settle the matter between the parties. That is the prerogative of the bank and cannot be by way of direction or issuing any writ in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 3. Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed. (R.M. SAVANT, J.) (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)