*1* s.2269.09 kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.2269 OF 2009 with NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3263/2009 Sadashiv B. Shetty. ..Plaintiff -Versus- Sri Harsh Developers. ..Defendant .......... D.H.Mehta a/w R.D.Suvarna, for the Plaintiff. C.S.Balsara a/w Usha Gadagkar i/b Divya Shah Associates, for the Defendant. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 26th November, 2010. P.C. 1 The claim of the Plaintiff for permanent alternate accommodation has been duly settled. 2 The Plaintiff and the Defendant have drawn the consent terms setting out the arrangement based upon which the permanent alternate accommodation will be given by the Defendant. 3 The consent terms are duly interpreted and explained to the parties by their respective Advocates. Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are present in the Court. They confirm their signatures below the terms. Since the dispute between the parties is about permanent alternate accommodation in lieu of the old premises, there is no impediment in taking the consent terms on record and passing the order in terms thereof. I am satisfied that the terms do not contravene any provisions of law and are not contrary to public policy. Both sides after discussions and *2* s.2269.09 negotiations have mutually settled their claims. 4 In such circumstances, the consent terms are taken on record and marked "X" for identification. There will be an order in terms of the consent terms. The undertakings in clauses 3, 5 and 7 of the consent terms are accepted. The suit is, accordingly, decreed. No order as to costs. Refund of the Court fees as per rules. 5 In view of disposal of the suit, the Notice of Motion does not survive and the same is also disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)