1 25 cra 150.10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION srk CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.150 OF 2010 Omkar Developers and Builders & Ors. ..Applicants. v/s. Shankarrao Govindrao Tilekar & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr. G.S.Godbole i/b Mr. Siddharth R. Ronghe for Applicants. Mr. A.R.Shaikh for Respondent nos. 1B-1, 1B-2. Mr. Rajdeep S. Khadapkar for the Respondent no.2. .... CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 26TH AUGUST, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard. The original Plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 578 of 2004 seeking certain reliefs on the basis of termination of development agreement with the Defendant. Pending the suit an attempt was made to settle the matter amicably and according to the Defendant, who is present Revision Applicant, a deed of confirmation was executed in July, 2004 and in view of that settlement nothing remained in the suit. On the other hand, the Plaintiff made an amendment in the plaint pointing out the execution of said deed of confirmation and stating that the 2 25 cra 150.10.doc Defendant had not complied with the same. The Defendant moved an Application Exhibit 89 with a prayer that the suit may be dismissed in view of the said deed of confirmation. The Application was opposed. The trial court rejected the Application. 2 On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, the alleged deed of confirmation and the stand taken by both the parties on the Application Exhibit 89, it appears that though during the pendency of the suit, an attempt was made to settle the matter amicably and Deed of confirmation was executed, still the Defendant did not act upon that settlement and did not provide the flats etc. to the Plaintiff as per that agreement. As the Defendant has not acted upon the terms of the said settlement, he cannot say that the suit has become infructuous. It appears that the Defendant does not want to comply with the terms of the settlement and is using that document only as ploy to get the suit dismissed. 3 Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, I find no illegality or irregularity in rejection of the Application Exhibit 89. Therefore, Revision Application stands dismissed. 3 25 cra 150.10.doc 4 Learned counsel for the Applicant points out that the impugned order was common order on Exhibit 89, Exhibit 91 and Exhibit 103 and the Applicant has preferred an Appeal against the order in respect of Order on Exhibit 91. It is hereby made clear that this order deals with only the Rejection of the Application Exhibit 89 and will have no effect on the Appeal against the order on Exhibit 91. [ J.H.BHATIA, J. ]