ORDER : SONIA GOKANI, J. 1. The appellant is the original respondent No.4, who has preferred this appeal under Section 37 B of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (‘the Act’ hereinafter) aggrieved and dissatisfied by the award declared by the Arbitrator on 24.10.2007 and confirmed by the learned Principal District Judge, Anand in Civil Misc. Application No.5 of 2008 dated 02.05.2014 under Section 34 of the Act. 1.1 The father of the appellant Shri Chaturbhai Patel and his two brothers Shri Harmanbhai Prabhudas Patel and Shri Bhailalbhai Prabhudas Patel started the firm on 17.02.1944 known as Chaturdas Prabhudas (NEE Company) (to be referred to hereinafter as ‘the firm’). Shri Chaturbhai expired on 03.03.1962 and the partnership deed indicated that he was the owner of all properties. 1.2 The heirs of Shri Chaturbhai were brought on Revenue Record as per the Revenue Rules and from 1962 to 1981 number of partners were inducted with different percentage of profit and loss. The said firm was reconstituted from time to time with the introduction of new partners. Shri Chaturbhai acquired several properties in Bombay at Mogra near Andheri and at Gujarat at Boryavi District Anand. After his death, as a member of joint Hindu Family, names of the heirs were mutated in the Revenue Record. 1.3 Arbitration Petition No.58 of 2005 was filed by the parties before this Court for appointment of the Arbitrator for resolving the dispute regarding the non-payment of the shares in their firm. 1.4 In Misc. Civil Application No.119 of 2006 for recall of the order and review of the same for appointment of the Arbitrator was sought, the same was rejected. 1.5 The business since had continued and the Arbitration Reference No.1 of 2006 had been filed praying for taking accounts of the partnership assets of the firm and the valuation of the properties. According to the appellant, the Arbitrator without considering the issue of jurisdiction held the properties of Shri Chaturbhai Prabhudas Patel being the properties of the firm and the claimants were found entitled to their non-paid shares in the partnership firm. 1.6 The appellant being aggrieved by the same order passed by the Arbitrator on 24.10.2007 preferred Civil Misc. Application No.5 of 2008 before the District Court under Section 34 of the Act. Another Civil Misc. Application No.3 of 2008 had been preferred by Shri Rupeshbhai Hargovindbhai Patel and Civil Misc. 1.6 The appellant being aggrieved by the same order passed by the Arbitrator on 24.10.2007 preferred Civil Misc. Application No.5 of 2008 before the District Court under Section 34 of the Act. Another Civil Misc. Application No.3 of 2008 had been preferred by Shri Rupeshbhai Hargovindbhai Patel and Civil Misc. Application No.4 of 2008 also had been preferred by Shri Sanjay Natubhai Patel and Shri Vasant Chaturbhai Patel. The judgment and order dated 02.05.2014 passed by the learned Principal District Judge is being challenged in these appeals. 2. This Court (Coram:Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Mohinder Pal) after hearing learned advocates on both the sides prima facie found that the conclusion of the learned Arbitrator that under the said retirement deed the accounts of partnership were yet to be settled and the respective claims of the claimants yet to be paid and was considered to be debatable issue. The Court also noted that the entirely different interpretation of the retirement agreement is also possible. 3. During the course of the final hearing on 01.09.2022, we had requested learned advocates on both the sides to explore the possibility of settlement through mediation so as to bring a permanent peace amongst the family members. It would vindicate that the talk of settlement was going on and eventually on 21.09.2022 the appellant and respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent Nos.5/1 to 5/5 have tendered the settlement pursis, which is as follow: “We the Appellants and Respondents number 1 to 3 and the Respondents 5/1 to 5/5 most respectfully submit the settlement pursis as under : 1. Background of the dispute :- M/s. Chaturbhai Prabhudas was a Partnership Firm having 10 Partners, each having an equal share in the Partnership Firm. The Respondents No. 1 TO 3, 6 and 9 retired from the Partnership Firm vide retirement deed 22.01.2003. A dispute arose pursuant to the said deed of retirement and Respondents No. 1 TO 3 as Claimants invoked Arbitration. The disputes were referred to the Arbitral Tribunal comprising Shri KG Vakharia. The Arbitration Tribunal gave its award on 24.10.2007 holding that the properties mentioned in the schedule to the Claim Statement are properties of the Firm and that the Claimants (Respondents No. 1 TO 3 herein) were not paid their share at the time of their retirement. Being aggrieved, deceased Appellant Lt. The Arbitration Tribunal gave its award on 24.10.2007 holding that the properties mentioned in the schedule to the Claim Statement are properties of the Firm and that the Claimants (Respondents No. 1 TO 3 herein) were not paid their share at the time of their retirement. Being aggrieved, deceased Appellant Lt. Dineshbhai Chaturbhai Patel, preferred application under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Court at Anand which was dismissed by judgement and order dated 02.05.2004. The present appeal has been also preferred by the deceased Appellant challenging the award and the judgment of the District Court Anand. 2. Consent Terms: It is hereby agreed by and between the parties as follows: 2.1 The parties hereto agree that the award of the learned Arbitrator, as modified by these Consent Terms is binding to the parties. 2.2 As per the Arbitral Award, Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are entitled to 10% each in the assets of the firm as on the date of retirement while, the Lt. Appellant Dineshbhai Chaturbhai Patel and Lt. Respondent No. 5 Jasubhai Chaturbhai Patel are entitled to 19% and 24% respectively in the assets of the firm left after the retirement of retiring partners in 2003. Effectively the Appellant and the Respondent No. 5 would therefore be entitled to 9.5% and 12% share in the assets of the firm. Irrespective of the award and the entitlement of the Appellant thereunder the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Respondent No. 5/1 to 5/5 agree to the modification of the award only inter se between the parties hereto. The modification to the award shall be as under: 2.1.1. Respondent No. 5/1 to 5/5 agree to give to the Appellants additional 3% share so as to make them entitled to 12.5% share in the lands of the partnership firm situated at village Mogra, near Andheri, Bombay mentioned in the schedule attached to the claim petition filed before learned arbitrator. Respondent No. 5/1 to 5/5 would jointly get 9% share in the said lands. 2.1.2. Respondent No. 5/1 to 5/5 agree to give to the Appellants additional 1.5% share so as to make them entitled to 11% share in all other assets of the partnership firm mentioned in the schedule attached to the claim petition filed before learned arbitrator while Respondent No. 5/1 to 5/5 would jointly get 10.5% share in the said properties. 2.1.2. Respondent No. 5/1 to 5/5 agree to give to the Appellants additional 1.5% share so as to make them entitled to 11% share in all other assets of the partnership firm mentioned in the schedule attached to the claim petition filed before learned arbitrator while Respondent No. 5/1 to 5/5 would jointly get 10.5% share in the said properties. 2.3 The consent terms and settlement is only between the Appellants and Respondent No.1 to 3 and 5.1 to 5.5. it shall not affect the share allotted by the award to the rest of the Respondents as well as share of the remaining continuing partners as per the continuing partnership deed. 2.4 The award as modified above, shall be satisfied by sale of properties. The properties mentioned in the schedule of arbitration reference no 1 of 2006 shall be sold on “as is” basis for each properties. The parties agreed that, the properties should be sold to highest bidder. Parties have agreed that the properties are required to be auctioned by and between the members of Family, by bidders brought by them and it is to be sold and for that purpose each branch of continuing partners (who expired) as well as retiring partners would be entitled to bring the highest bid within two months from the date of this settlement and the bid will be placed before all the parties for each properties mentioned in the schedule of Claim Petition separately and thereafter, further period of 02 months would be given to everyone to enhance the bid either by themselves or through their bidders and all should thereafter join the sale deed as per finality of the highest bid between the parties. This is subject to any interim relief operating in respect of properties. The parties agreed and would be also entitled to communicate their respective bids through their respective lawyer / attorney nominated by them. On sale of the properties in the term of this consent terms and distribution of the sale proceeds between the parties hereto and other Respondents, the award shall deemed to have been fully satisfied. 2.5 The agreed payment of sale consideration which may be received, shall be paid straight to the parties from the buyer as per the percentage agreed between the parties under this settlement deed. 2.5 The agreed payment of sale consideration which may be received, shall be paid straight to the parties from the buyer as per the percentage agreed between the parties under this settlement deed. 2.6 The parties are free to execute any document, deeds from the valid power of attorney holder as the parties have settled in USA. The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to modify the award inter se between the parties hereto in Consent Terms and the First Appeal may be disposed of accordingly and interim relief granted earlier shall stands vacated.” 4. The parties largely residing abroad and therefore, on our insistence of the parties being present physically. Learned counsels had expressed inability to so do it. Therefore, we have permitted them to remain present virtually and through video conferencing mode we had met them, each of them had confirmed of having signed this document and having agreed to enter into this voluntarily without any kind of a pressure and coercion so as to bring the end to their long drawn dispute. They are all close family members, who also needed to find succer from the litigations going on for number of years. 4.1 Having confirmed the intent and of their having signed the document, which had been present before this Court, we have recorded the same after the confirmation received from the respective parties. This compromise has been confined to the properties which were subject matter of the litigations before the learned Arbitrator as well as before the District Court concerned. 5. On having heard the learned counsels on both the sides and also after confirming the truthfulness and the voluntariness in preparing and signing the settlement, we choose to accept it and modify the award in terms of this consent terms. Parties shall bear their own respective cost. This change has been made on the strength of the compromise ensuring that no additional aspect which is not forming the part of the original claims is introduced through this compromise and hence, the decree is to be passed in terms of the settlement. 6. Present appeal is disposed of in the above terms. All the Civil Applications are disposed of. Interim relief stands vacated. 7. We appreciate the efforts put in by the learned counsels on both the sides in bringing an end to a long drawn litigation of the family.