1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L) NO.11 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2536 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2832 OF 2006 Sunil Choudhari and Anr. .... Appellants V/s. Continous Stationery Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. ..... Respondents WITH APPEAL (L) NO.12 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2231 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2832 OF 2006 Sunil Choudhari and Anr. .... Appellants V/s. Continous Stationery Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. ..... Respondents WITH APPEAL (L) NO.13 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.911 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2832 OF 2006 Sunil Choudhari and Anr. .... Appellants V/s. Continous Stationery Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.A.D.Yadav i/by Mr.D.R.Shah, for the appellants. Mr.V.V.Tulzapurkar, Sr.Advocate i/by Kanga & Co., for respondent No.1 None for respondent No.2. Dr.V.Tulzapurkar, Sr.Advocate, i/by P.D.S.Legal, for respondent No.3. 2 CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.C.CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 21, 2009 P.C. 1. Since in all these appeals, a common point is involved, they are taken up for hearing together. These appeals are directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19-11-2008. By the impugned orders, after recording the statement of the concerned Advocates, the learned Single Judge disposed of the notices of motion, by restraining the concerned defendants from creating third party interest. The learned Single Judge granted liberty to the original plaintiff to take out fresh motion for similar relief. The learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the impugned order is a consent order. He submitted that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants have argued any points on merits of the issue and therefore, the appeal is not required to be entertained. By the impugned orders, the learned Single Judge recorded the statement of Advocates that no third party interest will be created in respect of the suit property. Similar statement is made on behalf of defendant No.3 to the effect that no third party interest will be created in the suit property. In fact, it is also provided in the order that, for the similar relief, plaintiff can file fresh motion. Perusal of the impugned 3 orders indicate that the orders have been passed with the consent of the Advocates and no arguments were raised before the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to point out that the orders in question are not consent orders. As the said orders have been passed by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the consensus prevailing between the parties, in our view, the learned Single Judge is perfectly justified in passing the impugned orders. We therefore, do not find any substance in the appeals, which we dismissed with no order as to costs. ( R.C.CHAVAN, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)