Consent decrees are binding and enforceable, and courts can dispense mandatory notice for execution to prevent undue delay if justice requires it.

1. The present Chamber Summons has been taken out, pending Execution Application by the Plaintiff No. 1 for the relief namely notice to the defendants under O.21, R.22 of the Civil Procedure Code be dispensed with, defendants be directed to instruct their Advocates to hand over six cheques mentioned in the Escrow letter dated 7th December, 2000 to the plaintiff and / or to issue plaintiff cheques for the same amount, order of injunction from any manner alienate or disposing of or parting with the possession of the immovable property, to disclose their assets in accordance with O.21 R.41 of Civil Procedure Code. The Plaintiffs have added Mr. Mahendra R. Thakur as respondent in the present Chamber Summons and accordingly Chamber Summons dated 28th January, 2004 along with the affidavit and documents, prayed for reliefs as referred above.

2. The defendant through one Mr. Dilip Thacker, partner of defendant No. 1 and being the defendant No. 3 resisted the said Chamber Summons by his affidavit dated 3rd February, 2004. The rejoinder dated 9th February, 2004 has been filed by the plaintiff and reiterated their original contentions with additional material on record.

3. The basic facts which require for decision of the present Chamber Summons can be crystallised as under : -
a) On 25th July, 1996 the plaintiffs had filed the suit against defendants for the Specific Performance of the agreement dated 30th September, 1986 read with letter dated 30th September, 1986, agreements dated 26th September, 86 and 5th February, 1997. The suit was settled, between the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, and accordingly consent terms were signed. On 24th February, 1997 the consent decree came to be passed accordingly. Defendant No. 2 now, added as respondent, had retired from the partnership of the defendant No. 1 and therefore plaintiff had dropped the defendant No. 2 from the suit.
b) On 23rd March, 1998 supplementary consent terms were filed recording further arrangements between the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiffs. Some time between June, 2000 to December, 2000 the defendants had carried out additional construction in excess of 30843 sq. ft. As per Negotiations between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 3 for allotment of 25% of F.S.I. of excess constructed area in terms of F.S.I. again the consent terms were signed by the parties, on 7th December, 2000. The relevant clauses of those Consent terms are Clauses 9, 10 and 11.
c) As per Consent Terms dated 7th December, 2000 as referred above, defendants 1 and 3 deposited various cheques with their Advocates M/s. Law Charter to be kept in Escrow account with them, which was recorded by the letter dated 7th December, 2002. The earlier consent terms were modified. On 15th March, 2001 plaintiffs by their Advocate's letter called upon the Advocate for the defendants to release the said six cheques as defendant had become entitled to receive the said six cheques in terms of the consent terms. The defendants by their earlier letter dated 21st October, 2000 had made a claim of 643.48 sq.mtrs. and enclosed a copy of the said letter for the first time. By letter dated 20th March, 2001 defendants through its Advocate contended that in the meeting it was decided to keep the matter in abeyance. By letter dated 4th April, 2001 the plaintiff's Advocates resisted these pleas. The Defendants replied by their letter dated 5th April, 2001. By the letter dated 10th May, 2001 plaintiffs' Advocate requested defendants' Advocate to hand over those cheques. The Draft of Consent Decree dated 23rd January, 2001