A consent order is not appealable under Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties in connection with the appeal registered as M. A. T. No. 842 of 2007 whereby judgment and order dated 28th February, 2007 passed in Writ Petition no. 24098 (W) of 2006 was challenged. An application praying for stay of the impugned judgment under appeal being C. A. N. No. 2021 of 2007 was filed. This application for stay was heard on 15th March and 20th March, 2007. In course of hearing of this application for stay which has come up today for further hearing, this Court is of the view that in deciding the stay application as this Court is required to consider the legal question involved in the judgment under appeal, the appeal should be heard along with this stay application. Accordingly, both the appeal and application are taken up for final hearing. All parties have been served and submission of informal paper book is dispensed with and all other formalities are dispensed with.

( 2 ) IN this appeal the appellants are Industrial Investment Bank of india Limited Officers' Association as appellant No. 1 and one Sri Milan kumar Das, Vice-President of appellant No. 1, as appellant No. 2. Though the appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 20th February, 2007 aforesaid and the subsequent order dated 12th March, 2007, but in course of hearing appellant restricted his argument so far as challenge of Clause (c) of the order dated 20th February, 2007 passed in this writ application and other writ applications as were disposed of. For effective adjudication of the matter the impugned judgment under appeal is required to be re-produced. By the order dated 28th February, 2007 the writ Petition No. 24098 (W) of 2006 was disposed of against which this appeal has been preferred, by passing orders on consent of the parties which reads thus : -

"in the back ground of such suggestions being made and in the interest of justice, this matter is, therefore, disposed of by-consent of parties. As a result, the following directions are made: - (a) Notwithstanding the date for exercising the option having come to an end and notwithstanding the Bank having taken a decision not to give any further effect to the Letter of Option, they will now extend the period for exercising the option not only to these petitioners but also to all such similarly situated persons who could not exercise their options within time including those who had come to this Court and whose writ petitions were disposed off on the basis of the statement of the Bank to the effect that the Letter of Option would not be given to; (b) The Bank shall extend the period for exercising the option in terms of the Letter of Option and the said period shall be available to all such employees till 15th of March, 2007; (c) It is made clear that the act of exercising such option should not be construed to mean that the optees have given up their right to pray for consideration of their claims for pension and wage revision strictly in accordance with law before their employers under which they would be serving after exercising such option. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of by consent of parties. "

( 3 ) AN oral prayer was made by giving notice to the parties by the present appellants before the learned Trial Judge for clarification of the order dated 28th February, 2007. On 12th March, 2007 a further order was passed in the said writ application which reads thus: -

"this case has been listed at the instance of the petitioners for clarification of Clause 'c' of the order dated 28. 2. 2007. The learned Counsel for the petitioners states that Clause 'c' of the order should not be restricted only to make their claims before the employers under which they would be serving but they should be given liberty to make such claim before the Government of India also. In the opinion of this Court, such a clarification is totally misconceived because this Court