( 1 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on this appeal, which is filed as against the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in CM nos. 15168/2006, in RA No. 215/2006 and to restore order dated 08. 8. 2006 passed in ra No. 215/2006. ( 2 ) ON going through the records and upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we find that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 27th February, 2006. The said writ petition was disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and a consent order was passed to the following effect:- "13. Counsel for the parties state that the writ petition could be disposed of on the following agreed terms:- (i)Petitioner would prepare a layout plan indicating the proposed constructions which he intends to erect and would supply the same to respondents 2 and 3. (ii)Within two weeks of receipt of the plans, respondents 2 and 3 would notify their assent or objection, if any. (iii)If petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are unable to agree on mutual agreed terms to the plans, decision taken by Sh. J. M. Sabharwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 would be treated as the agreed terms under which petitioner can utilize his proportionate unutilized FAR. (iv)Plan as per agreed terms would be prepared and signed by the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 and would be submitted for approval to the Municipal corporation of Delhi. (v)Petitioner would construct strictly as per the agreed plans in respect whereof sanction would be obtained from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. (vi)During construction every possible care would be taken to ensure that no damage whatsoever is caused to the structure in possession of respondents 2 and 3. However, if any damage is caused, petitioner would rectify the same at his own cost. (vii)In future, should respondents 2 and 3 desire to effect further construction and utilize their proportionate unutilized FAR, petitioner would reciprocate and join in signing the agreed building plans to be submitted to MCD. (viii)Under no circumstances would the petitioner be entitled to a proportionate far being more than 52. 62% less benefit of such FAR to which he has already acqulesced in favour of respondents 2 and 3. (viii)Under no circumstances would the petitioner be entitled to a proportionate far being more than 52. 62% less benefit of such FAR to which he has already acqulesced in favour of respondents 2 and 3. " ( 3 ) AFTER the aforesaid order was passed, certain actions were taken by the respective parties thereto, when a review application registered as RA no. 215/2006 came to be filed by the respondent. The same was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by passing an order on 8th August, 2006 in which certain directions were issued. The said order, it is obvious was passed at the behest of the respondent who had filed the said application. Subsequently, an order was passed on 8th December, 2006 in CM No. 15168/2006 recalling of order dated 8th August, 2006. ( 4 ) THIS order was passed as the learned Single Judge observed that the respondent had failed to mention about existence of the collaboration agreement, when RA no. 215/2006 and CM No. 7567/2006 were decided. ( 5 ) IN view of withdrawal of the aforesaid order dated 08. 8. 2006, what remains in the field is the order dated 27th February, 2006, whereby the writ petition was disposed of in the aforesaid manner by a consent order. Since order dated 08. 12. 2006 disposing of the review application has been cancelled and withdrawn, the order dated 27th February, 2006 is binding and, therefore, there is no cause for the appellant to be aggrieved under any circumstance. ( 6 ) IF any adverse order/direction is passed against the appellant in terms of the order dated 08. 8. 2006, it shall be open to the appellant to take recourse to the remedy as provided for. ( 7 ) THE appeal stands disposed of. .