-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Notice of Motion No.590 of 2009 in Suit No.1979 of 1993 Dhanji Nanji Tank ..Plaintiff vs. Bery Laticia Rodriques & ors. ...Defendants Mr.F.Divitre,Sr.Counsel with Mr.D.Madonm, Sr. Counsel with Mr.Rajeev Bhatia i/b Apex Consillis for plaintiff Mr.Y.E.Mooman for defendant nos. 1 to 5. Mr.H.C.Pimple for defendant no.6 Mr.Chirag Balsara with Mr.Mohd.Imayat i/b Negandhi Shah and Himayatullah for defendant nos. 7 and 8. CORAM S.J.KATHAWALLA J. CORAM S.J.KATHAWALLA J. CORAM S.J.KATHAWALLA J. 7th May, 2009 7th May, 2009 7th May, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 27th April, 2009, the Commissioner appointed by the Court has submitted his report dated 4th May, 2009 which is taken on record. The Commissioner has in paragraph 9 of his report stated that plaintiff nos.1, 4 and 6 have been translated the consent terms marked "X" at their respective residences by Mr.A.N.Waghela, the official translator in Gujarati and all of them have confirmed that they have put their respective thumb impressions on the consent terms and they continue to support the consent terms after -2- having understood the contents in Gujarathi. The learned Advocate for the plaintiff has informed the Court that plaintiff no.5 is present in Court. Plaintiff No.5 has informed the Court that the consent terms have been explained and interpreted to her in Gujarathi by the office of the Translator and Interpreter, High Court, Bombay and that she understood the contents and agreed to the same and had signed the same on page 18 of the consent terms. The learned Advocate for the plaintiffs submitted that plaintiff no.11 has not been able to remain present in Court as she continues to be in Calcutta. Plaintiff no.11 is, therefore, directed to appear before this Court on 9th June, 2009 for the purpose of recording her statement pertaining to the consent given by her for execution/filing of the consent terms at X. 2. In view of the aforesaid the decree against the parties except plaintiff no.11 stands confirmed. It is clarified that the Bombay Municipal Corporation i.e. defendant no.6 is nota party to the consent terms and the suit is dismissed as withdrawn against defendant no.6. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.)