1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.96 OF 2006 WITH NMS/140/2006 AND NMS/2992/2006 Vinod Jivanlal Mehta & anr. ...Plaintiffs. Vs. Mrs.Ruchita Rasesh Mehta & anr. ...Defendants. ALONG WITH SUIT NO.1008/2006 AND NMS/1155/2006 Mrs.Ruchita Rasesh Mehta & anr. .. Plaintiffs vs. Vinod Jivanlal Mehta & 8 ors. .. Defendants Ms.Rajni Iyer, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Vivek Kantawala and Ms.Martha Butala, Advocates i/b. M/s.Vivek Kantawala & Co. for the Plaintiffs in Suit No. 96/2006 and for defendants 1, 2, 4 to 9 in Suit No.1008/06. Mr.Vishal Maheshwari i/b. M/s.Khaitan & Co. for defendant no.9 in Suit No.1008/06. Mr.Zuben BehramKamdin, Mr.Vivek Vashi, Ms.Sushma Nagraj and Ms.Shalaka Patil i/b. Bharucha & Partners for Defendants 1 and 2 in Suit No.96/2006 and for plaintiffs in Suit No.1008/2006. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 5th November, 2009. P.C.- 1 The contesting parties have arrived at settlement as it is a family 2 dispute and accordingly signed the Consent Terms dated 14.10.2009 along with their respective Advocates. There is no objection of any kind with regard to the identification, authorisation and signatures of the parties. 2 In Suit No.1008/2006, all the parties are represented by their respective Advocates. Defendants 1, 2 and 5 are only personally present in Court. Defendants 3 and 4 are not present in Court. Defendants 6, 7 and 8 are represented by Senior Counsel Ms.Rajni Iyer Defendant no.9 is represented by Mr. Vishal Maheshwari, Advocate. Defendant no.3 has e- mailed his no objection as stated by the learned Senior Counsel. 3 It is made clear that except plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 and 2, all other defendants are not signatories to the Consent Terms. The statement is made and accepted by the other defendants/parties that they have no right or liability or claim against each other including against the plaintiffs and defendants 1, 2 and 9 with regard to the subject matter of the properties of the Consent Terms. They have no objection to this Consent Terms. 4 An affidavit of Ms.Ruchita Rasesh Mehta, plaintiff no.1 in Suit No. 1008/2006 and defendant no.1 in Suit No.96/2006 dated 15.10.2009, is taken on record and marked “X”, as contemplated under Order 32, Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) stating how the Consent Terms are in the interest of the minor (Ansh Mehta) i.e. Plaintiff no.2 in Suit No.1008/2007 and defendant no.2 in Suit No.96/2006. A Certificate dated 15.10.2009 of 3 M/s.Bharucha and Partners, Advocates certifying that the Consent Terms are for the benefit of the minor, is also taken on record and marked “Y”. Leave is granted accordingly. 5 In view of above, after considering the averments made in the affidavit read with the certificate and the Consent Terms, I am inclined to accept the Consent Terms in the interest of justice, which is marked as “Z”. 6 All the undertakings recorded in the Consent Terms, as accepted by the parties are also accepted. 7 Both the Suits stand decreed and disposed of accordingly in terms of the Consent Terms dated 14.10.2009, with liberty. Certified copy is expedited. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)