1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.65 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.724 OF 2008 Shri Ramesh K. Rathod .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Vinvent X. D’Silva for the petitioner. Mr.Thomas Almeida for respondent No.3. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 02nd July 2008 P.C. . The petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in this Court being Writ Petition No.724 of 2008 challenging the order passed by the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Bombay on 03rd January, 2008 in an appeal under section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short ‘Slum Act’). The contention was that he is being evicted in execution of a decree 2 for possession passed in favour of respondent No.3. That was in a suit filed in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. The contention of the petitioner was that unless and until the competent authority under the Slum Act grants permission, the decree cannot be executed. However, the competent authority granted such permission, which was challenged before the Administrator in appeal. Thus against the concurrent orders permitting execution of decree for possession the writ petition was filed. 2. After hearing both sides at length and expressing the view that the Court is not inclined to go into factual aspects in the limited jurisdiction, both sides agreed to the order that was passed by the Court. The petitioner did not press his challenge to the impugned orders. He was very much present in the Court when the order was passed. His advocate took instructions from him after explaining to him the implications and consequences flowing from the consent given by him. In such 3 circumstances, by mere change of advocate the consent order cannot be recalled. The petitioner cannot now turn around and allege that he was unaware of what was transpiring in the Court. The tendency of the litigant to indulge in all such tactics cannot be encouraged, more so, when the orders are passed in their presence. Review Petition is dismissed. However, there will be no orders as to costs. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)