1 nma2045.11.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2045 OF 2011 IN APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 425 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1759 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO. 1319 OF 2011 Vinayak S. Dhadwe & Anr. ......Appellants. Vs. Dr. Sunil J. Parekh & Anr. ......Respondents. Mr. R.V. Govilkar for the Appellants. None for the Respondents. CORAM :- D.K DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE :- 24 AUGUST 2011. P.C. :- This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Appellants who are the original Defendants in Suit Lodging No. 2280 of 2010, challenging order dated 9 September 2010 in a Notice of Motion which was taken out by the Plaintiffs. The delay in filing Appeal is of 146 days. Perusal of the order dated 9 September 2010 which is challenged in the 2 nma2045.11.sxw ssm Appeal shows that the order has been made by the learned Single Judge by consent of the parties. Paragraph 1 of that order makes the position clear, which reads thus- “1 Pursuant to the Court’s order, the defendants are personally present in court. Mr. Kapadia, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and Mr. Cama appearing on behalf of the defendants on instructions leave the matter to the court so as to make an appropriate order protecting the interest of the parties.” 2 It is further apparent that the ultimate order made by the learned Single Judge is also based on the undertaking and statement that were made by the Defendants before the learned Single Judge which are recorded in paragraphs 7 and 8 of that order. 3 In this view of the matter, therefore, as the Appeal is against an order which is made by consent of the parties, Appeal is not maintainable. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by condoning the delay. The Motion is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.)