36-WP-6925-2018.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6925 OF 2018 Jayantilal Shaparia and Others … Petitioners Vs. Vrushali Aacharya and Others … Respondents Ms. Yogita Deshmukh Chitnis for the Petitioners. Mr. Satyajeet Joshi a/w. Mr. Chinmay Joshi for Respondent No. 1. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 4th MARCH 2026 ORDER : 1. This petition is filed by defendant nos. 9 to 13 to challenge the order passed by the trial court refusing the permission sought by the plaintiffs to withdraw the consent pursis and further directed parties to proceed with the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the consent terms were signed by plaintiff no. 1. The same was taken on record on 5th March 2015. Thereafter, the suit has been virtually worked out as the parties have acted upon the consent pursis. She therefore submitted that there was no reason for the trial court to proceed with the suit. 1/3 rrpillai RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Date: 2026.03.10 20:45:35 +0530 36-WP-6925-2018.docx 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the terms have not been acted upon and therefore she had filed application to withdraw the consent terms. She submits that after the impugned order the suit has proceeded and plaintiff has filed evidence affidavit. 3. I have perused the papers. On the consent terms except for an endorsement by the concerned Judge, recording that, ‘it is seen and filed’ there is no order passed accepting the consent terms. The trial court has rejected the application to withdraw the pursis. However, since the suit has remained pending, directed the parties to proceed with the suit. 4. I do not find any error in the impugned order. Mere filing of the consent pursis would not amount to the court recording any satisfaction and accepting the consent terms. There is no dispute that the suit was never disposed of in terms of the consent pursis. The trial court has therefore rightly directed the parties to proceed with the suit. Grievance if any, of the parties regarding the consent pursis, can be considered at the appropriate stage, during the trial. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 2/3 36-WP-6925-2018.docx 5. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order in the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The writ petition is therefore rejected. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 3/3