:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4069 OF 2006 M/s. Tasleem Constructions .. Petitioner Vs. Smt. Hajira Begam Nissar & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. R.S. Apte with Mr. Mandar Limaye for petitioner. Ms. Neeta Karnik for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : June 27, 2006. Date : June 27, 2006. Date : June 27, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Apte the learned counsel for the petitioner. Regular Civil Suit No. 1064 of 1995 was decided between the parties by a compromise and a consent decree came to be passed on 29/11/1996. Regular Civil Darkhast No.16 of 1999 was also allowed by the order dated 15/3/2002. It appears thereafter the plaintiff in the said suit and the present petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No.247 of 2002 for a declaration that the compromise decree passed in RCS No.1064 of 1995 was null and void, illegal, not enforceable and not maintainable. The plaintiff in :2: this fresh suit claimed that the compromise decree was based on bogus and sham documents. In this fresh suit an application for temporary injunction was filed at Exh.5 which was allowed by the learned Judge of the trial court and, therefore, the defendants challenged the same in Misc. Civil Appeal No.18 of 2006 which has been allowed by the learned Extra Joint District Judge at Thane by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 24/4/2006. 2. The main terms of the consent decree were as under:- (a) Defendant/tenants were to handover the possession of plot No.60 to the plaintiff before the expiry of lease agreement period, to facilitate plaintiff to develop the said plot. (b) That in lieu of the tenancy rights plaintiff would handover constructed area of :3: 1850 sq.ft. on the ground floor of the proposed building i.e. "Tukaram Park" to the defendant No.1 and 2 viz. 925 sq.ft. as per MAP, annexed to compromise terms. (c) That plaintiff would handover constructed premises to the defendant within 24 months from the date of withdrawal of all cases, which were filed by the defendants herein. 3. The subsequent suit has been filed for declaration of the earlier consent decree as void mainly on the ground that the tenancy agreements were fabricated, bogus and sham. Such an allegation by itself cannot make out a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff who was a consenting party to the earlier compromise decree. It is obvious that by one hand the plaintiff wants to grab plot No.60 but does not want to maintain the obligation in turn to hand over the constructed area of 1850 sq.ft. to the defendants and, therefore, all these litigations which are nothing short of luxurious litigations. The :4: learned Judge of the Lower Appellate Court rightly intervened and corrected the view taken by the trial court in accepting the prima facie case on the basis of such allegations. Hence the impugned order calls for no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. The petition is rejected summarily. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)