FATEH CHAND KUMAR Vs. HARIVANSH LAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I propose to dispose of I.A. No. 8038/98 filed on behalf of Plaintiffunder Section, 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking the issuance of adirection to Defendants 2. and 3 to deposit the Court fee for drawing up the decree.l.A.No. 8039/98 has been filed on behalf of Defendant No. 6 and is a reproductionVerbatim, of the other application. A Reply to I.A. 8038/98 has been filed on behalf ofDefendants 2 and 3.

(2.) The objection raised on behalf of Defendants 2 and 3 is that the application isnot maintainable as the case has been decided on 7.5.1996. It has also been statedthat all the parties have filed appeals against the judgment passed, and these arepending before a Division Bench of this Court. It is further, submitted that thejudgment has varied the terms of compromise arrived at between the parties and hasincreased the liability of Defendants 2 and 3 against their consent. To this extent it ishonest.

(3.) The question of the legality of the judgment, insofar as it is impermissible for theCourt to vary the consent terms, is a matter which is to be appropriately agitatedbefore the Division Bench which is seized with the Appeals. I would, therefore, notventure further into this province. Suffice it to mention that the following cases havebeen relied upon, namely, Kaluram Bheruji Vs. Bai Parvati. AIR 1982 Gujarat 233,which states that a decreed passed on the basis of a compromise altered by theCourt would be a nullity. In Pioneer Engineering Co. Vs. D.H. Machine Tools, AIR1986 Delhi 165, it has been held that the court cannot enlarge time fixed bycompromise between the parties. Similar pronouncements had earlier been made inJaynal Haldar Vs. Khorsed Sheikh, AIR 1982 Calcutta 118.