petition challenging the award, the Plaintiff sought leave to withdraw the Chamber Summons. The order passed by this Court on 28 November 2013 allowing the Plaintiff to withdraw the Chamber Summons, inter alia noted that the Plaintiff sought to withdraw the Chamber Summons on the ground that the development agreement between Defendant No.1 and Respondent No.2 did not survive in view of the subsequent affidavit of the Defendants and consent terms filed in arbitration petition No.797 of 2011. It is the Plaintiff's case that, at that stage, the Plaintiff did not have the consent terms before him and applied to withdraw the Chamber Summons in the light of the consent terms. The Plaintiff has come to obtain a copy of the consent terms dated 13 July 2012 entered into between Defendant No.1 and Respondent No.2 on 15 January 2014. The consent terms disclosed that the development agreement was modified by a supplemental agreement of 21 June 2006 and that the consideration provided in the development agreement, as modified by the supplemental agreement, was further modified by the consent terms. The consent terms, as noted above, provided for sale of the property by Defendant No.1 to Respondent No.2 on “as is where is basis”. So also, the consent terms gave the power to Respondent No.2 to execute conveyance in respect of the suit property. These consent terms are now sought to be challenged by amending the plaint on the basis of the present Chamber Summons. This Chamber Summons contains an application, which is qualitatively different from the Chamber Summons earlier filed, namely, Chamber Summons No. 150 of 2012, and the purported omission on the part of the Plaintiff to reserve liberty whilst withdrawing that Chamber Summons should not come in the way of Plaintiff taking out the present Chamber Summons.
