1 WP-3062.11&2336.11.sxw lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3062 OF 2011 Mr.Rajesh Prabhakar Shet : Petitioner versus M/s. Melinkeri Gapchup Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. : Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2336 OF 2011 M/s. Melinkeri Gapchup Constructions Pvt.Ltd. and anr. : Petitioners. versus Rajesh Prabhakar Shet : Respondent. Mr.Manoj Mohan Gadkari for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.3062/11 and Respondent in Writ Petition No.2336/11 Mr. P S Dani for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2336 of 2011 and Respondent for Writ Petition No.3062 of 2011. CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 14th November 2011 P.C. 1 The first Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21/4/2011 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court and Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune in so far as it sets aside the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.95/2008 and restores the suit to file. 2 WP-3062.11&2336.11.sxw 2 In so far as second Writ Petition is concerned, the same order has been challenged to the extent it directs the Petitioners in the said Petition to deposit an amount of Rs.Fifteen lacs in the trial Court pending the suit which has been restored by the same order. 3 The learned counsel for the parties state that the parties have entered into Memorandum of Understanding on 31/10/2011 in terms of which the dispute covered by the said suit as well as the above Petitions stands resolved. In terms of the said Memorandum of Understanding and especially clause 12 thereof, the parties have agreed to withdraw all the cases filed against each other in various courts and in terms of Clause 19 thereof the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.2336 of 2011 have to fulfill their obligations within a period of two months. The said Memorandum of Understanding is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. 4 An apprehension is expressed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.3062 of 2011 that in the event the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.2336 of 2011 do not fulfill their obligations, it should not be that the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.3062 of 2011 is left in the lurch on account of withdrawal of Writ Petition No.3062 of 2011. In view of the apprehension expressed by the Petitioner in the said Writ Petition, it would be just and proper to grant liberty to the Petitioners in both the Petitions to revive their respective Petitions in the event the Memorandum of Understanding does 3 WP-3062.11&2336.11.sxw not work out. With the liberty as aforesaid, both the Petitions are allowed to be withdrawn. 5 The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.3062 of 2011 and, Petitioner No. 2, who is the director of Petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.2336 of 2011 are personally present. [R.M.SAVANT, J]