Bombay High Court
JAYANTILAL VIDHALBHAI SHAPARIA AND ORS.versusVRUSHALI VILAS AACHARYA AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- GAURI GODSE
Holding
The trial court's order refusing withdrawal of the consent pursis and directing the suit to continue was lawful and not subject to interference.
Summary
The petitioners, defendants nos. 9 to 13, challenged a trial court order that refused their application to withdraw previously filed consent pursis and directed the parties to continue with the underlying suit. The petitioners argued that the consent terms had been signed and acted upon, rendering the suit unnecessary, while the plaintiffs contended that the consent terms had not been acted upon and sought withdrawal. The trial court had not formally accepted the consent pursis, merely noting its filing, and therefore rejected the withdrawal request and ordered the suit to proceed. The appellate judge examined the record and found no error, stating that filing a consent pursis does not constitute court acceptance and the suit remained pending. Consequently, the appellate court held that there was no illegality or perversity in the trial court's order and declined to interfere under Article 227. The writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing the application to withdraw the consent pursis and directing the parties to proceed with the suit.
Subjects
- consent pursis
- withdrawal of consent
- civil procedure
- Article 227
- writ petition
- trial court discretion
Judgment
36-WP-6925-2018.docx
rrpillai 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
Digitally signed
reason for the trial court to proceed with the suit.
by
RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI
RAMESH
RAMESH PILLAI
PILLAI Date:
2026.03.10
20:45:35 +0530
1/3
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
Checking your session…