-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 951 OF 2010 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1390 OF 2009 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 623 OF 2001 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1153 OF 1998 ALONG WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2439 OF 2010 WITH APPEAL NO. 952 OF 2010 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1391 OF 2009 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 623 OF 2001 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1153 OF 1998 ALONG WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2440 OF 2010 Baldevkrishan Sharma HUF ... Appellant versus The Indian Express Ltd. and another ...Respondents Ms. Alisha Lambay with Mr. Vikas Singh, instructed by M/s. Lambay & Company, for the appellant. Mr.Vikas K. Singh for respondent No.2 (Undertakes to file Vakalatnama) Baldevkrishan Sharma, Appellant and Ms. Mona Sharma, Proprietress of Respondent No.2 present. Mr. Ramakrishnan Kunnath, Constituted Attorney of Respondent No.1 present. -2- CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2010. P.C. The challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 29th April, 2010. The appellant and respondent No.2 are the judgment debtors and respondent No.1-original Plaintiff, Indian Express Limited, is the decree holder. The parties have settled their disputes. The appellant has paid to respondent No.1 in all Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) by way of demand draft No. 352784 of Bank of Baroda, Shivaji Park, Mumbai-400 016 dated 20th August, 2010 towards the full and final settlement of the decretal claim of respondent No.1, original plaintiff. It is pointed out by the learned advocates that the entire decree shall stand now satisfied and respondent No.1-original plaintiff has now not to recover anything from the appellant or respondent No.2. The consent terms between the appellant and the respondents duly signed by the parties and their advocates are taken on record and marked “X” for identification. It is pointed out that Mr. Vikas Singh is appearing for respondent No.2 and he undertakes to file his vakalatnama during the course of the day. The appellant, Baldevkrishan Sharma, in his individual capacity as well as Karta of HUF is present. He has been identified by his advocate Ms. Alisha Lambay. The Constituted Attorney of respondent No.1- original plaintiff is also present. Ms. Mona Sharma, Proprietress of respondent No.2 is present. She has also been identified by her Advocate. Since parties -3- have amicably settled the dispute, the decree of the trial court is substituted by the consent terms. As per the consent terms, the decree stands satisfied. All the proceedings are accordingly stand terminated including the execution application. The Constituted Attorney of respondent No.1-original plaintiff undertakes that he will withdraw the execution application filed before the Commissioner for Taking Accounts within a period of two weeks from today. The immovable properties attached in the execution proceedings shall stand released. Oral undertaking is also recorded. All concerned to act as per the consent terms. Both the Appeals and the Notices of Motion are accordingly disposed of in view of the Consent Terms. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.