Bombay High Court
1. SHRI KISAN MOHANLAL HEDA AND OTHERS.versusYUSUF MAHAMMAD KAPSE (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES A SMT. SHANTABAI YUSUF KAPSE and ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court accepted the consent terms and disposed of the civil revision application.
Summary
The applicants filed a civil revision seeking to set aside a 2008 judgment of the 3rd Adhoc District Judge, Kolhapur, and to allow their earlier appeal. During the hearing, both parties agreed that the dispute had been amicably resolved and submitted consent terms dated 10 September 2026, signed by the parties and their attorneys. The court examined the consent terms, confirming that they were voluntarily executed and did not contravene public policy. Consequently, the court accepted the consent terms and disposed of the revision application. No order as to costs was made.
Issues considered
- Whether a civil revision application may be disposed of on the basis of parties' consent terms.
- Whether the settlement reflected in the consent terms is contrary to public policy.
Subjects
- civil revision
- consent terms
- settlement
- procedural disposal
- High Court of Bombay
- Kolhapur
Judgment
40-CRA-476-2008 (C).docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 476 OF 2008
1A Raghav Yogesh Heda
1B Rishi Yogesh Heda
2 Sou. Preeti Yogesh Heda
3 Smt. Kashibai Mohanlal Heda
(Since deceased) Through Applicant Nos.1A & 1B
4 Smt. Gangabai Devkisan Heda
(Since deceased) Through LRs
4A Yogesh Nandlal Heda
5 Kisanpyari Nandlal Heda … Applicants
Versus
1 Yusuf Mahammad Kapse
(Since deceased) Through LRs
1A Smt. Shantabai Yusuf Kapse (Deceased)
1B Babasaheb Yusuf Kapse
1C Sou. Sujata Rajahan Thorvat … Respondents
----
Mr. S.C. Mangle a/w. Mr. Ashitosh S. Jambilkar i/b. Mr. C.G. Gavnekar for the
Applicants.
Mr. Gajraj A. Mali i/b. Mr. Chetan G. Patil for the Respondent Nos.1B & 1C.
-------
Coram : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
Date : 10th September 2026.
osk 1 of 5
40-CRA-476-2008 (C).docx
Oral Order:
1. Heard Mr. S. C. Mangle, learned Advocate for the Applicants and Mr.
Gajraj A. Mali, learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1B & 1C.
2. By this Civil Revision Application, the Applicants have sought the
following substantive relief in prayer clause (b), which is reproduced
verbatim :
“(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the
impugned Judgment and order dated 27.3.2008 passed by the
Learned 3rd Adhoc District Judge, Kolhapur in Regular Civil
Appeal No.334 of 2004 and further be pleased to allow Regular
Civil Appeal No. 334 of 2004.”
3. Today, by a separate order dated 10 th September 2026, Interim
Application No. 1409 of 2026 is allowed in terms of the prayer clauses (a)
and (b) therein and Applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been substituted for the
original Applicant Nos. 1(a) to 1(g) & 5A. Mr. S. C. Mangle, learned Advocate
for the Applicants, states that the amendment is carried out in terms of the
order dated 10th September 2026 in Interim Application No. 1409 of 2026.
4. Mr. S. C. Mangle, learned Advocate for the Applicants and Mr. Gajraj
Mali, learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1B & 1C, jointly state that the
subject matter of the dispute in this Revision Application has been amicably
osk 2 of 5
40-CRA-476-2008 (C).docx
resolved and the parties seek permission to place the Consent Terms on
record of this Application.
5. Mr. S. C. Mangle, learned Advocate for the Applicants, states that
Applicant No. 4A ( Yogesh Nandlal Heda) appears for himself and for the
Applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, being their constituted Attorney, constituted
vide Power of Attorney dated 8th September 2026. He states that Applicant
No. 4A is present in Court and that he identifies Applicant No. 4A.
6. Mr. Gajraj Mali, learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1B & 1C
states that the Respondent Nos.1B & 1C are present in Court and he
identifies them.
7. Mr. S. C. Mangle, learned Advocate for the Applicants and Mr. Gajraj
Mali, learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1B & 1C, jointly tender the
Consent Terms dated 10th September 2026, signed by Applicant No. 4A for
himself and as constituted attorney of Applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5 and by
Respondent Nos. 1B & 1C. Mr. S. C. Mangle, learned Advocate for the
Applicants and Mr. Gajraj Mali, learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1B
& 1C, state that the Advocates on record for the Applicants and the
Respondents have signed the Consent Terms dated 10th September 2026.
8. Appended to the Consent Term dated 10th September 2026 are the
identity cards of Applicant No. 4A and Respondent Nos. 1B & 1C, as also a
osk 3 of 5
40-CRA-476-2008 (C).docx
photostat copy of the Power of Attorney dated 8 th September 2026, duly
certified by Mr. S. C. Mangle, learned Advocate for the Applicants. The
consent terms, along with the documents (page Nos. 1 to 27), are taken on
record and collectively marked with “X” for identification.
9. Mr. S. C. Mangle, learned Advocate for the Applicants and Mr. Gajraj
Mali, learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1B & 1C, state that the
Applicants and the Respondent Nos. 1B & 1C are the only parties with an
interest in the dispute which is the subject matter of this Revision Application
and that the consent terms (“X”) bind the parties to these proceedings.
10. Applicant No. 4A and Respondent Nos. 1B & 1C, who are present in
Court, identified by their respective Advocates appearing today, state that
they have signed the Consent Terms (“X”) voluntarily, of their own free will,
without any force or coercion from any person. They further state that the
contents of the Consent Terms (“X”) reflect the settlement entered into
between them.
11. Mr S. C. Mangle, learned Advocate for the Applicants and Mr Gajaraj
Mali, learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1B & 1C, state that the Civil
Revision Application be disposed of by accepting the Consent Terms (“X”).
12. The contents of the Consent Terms (“X”) do not indicate that the
settlement is contrary to public policy.
osk 4 of 5
40-CRA-476-2008 (C).docx
13. By recording the statements of Mr. S. C. Mangle, learned Advocate for
the Applicants and Mr. Gajaraj Mali, learned Advocate for the Respondent
Nos.1B & 1C and the statements made by the parties present today, the
Consent Terms dated 10th September 2026 (“X”) are accepted.
14. Civil Revision Application No. 476 of 2008 stands disposed of in terms
of the Consent Terms dated 10th September 2026.
15. No orders as to costs.
[ ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. ]
Digitally signed
by OMKAR
SHIVAHAR
OMKAR KUMBHAKARN
SHIVAHAR
KUMBHAKARN Date:
2026.09.11
12:18:07
+0530
osk 5 of 5
Checking your session…