BHOLI Vs. LACHHMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed by the plaintiff is directed against the order dated 05. 03. 2008 passed by the High Court condoning the delay of 17 years in filing second appeal. By the impugned order the High Court admitted the second appeal after condoning the delay of 17 years.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) IN terms of the order referred to above this Court clearly held that the terms of the compromise had become a decree passed by the civil court and, therefore, the court has become functus officio to modify the decree. This Court was, therefore of the view that the High Court fell in error to extend the time for depositing the money by modifying the terms of the decree which was based on settlement between the parties. This Court was further of the view that if the Court modifies the decree, it varies the terms of the settlement which is not permissible. On the aforesaid premises this Court set aside the order of the High Court extending the time for depositing the second instalment.