V. PONNAPPAN Vs. VIJAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises in this revision petition is whether a compromise entered into between the decree holder and the judgment debtor not recorded by the court can be recognised by the court executing the decree.

(2.) Respondent obtained a money decree against revision petitioner and sought to realise the amount by attachment of salary. Revision petitioner pleaded that there had been an agreement by which the decree holder had consented to receive Rs. 2,500/- in full satisfaction of the claim towards which an amount of Rs. 1000/- was paid and the balance agreed to be paid before 3-3-1988. He was not able to pay the balance amount before the stipulated date, but the same was tendered since then, and refused by the decree holder who put the decree in execution for realisation of the balance under the decree. Revision petitioner resisted the execution petition and contended that he was liable to pay only the balance as per the agreement. The agreement was not recorded by the court. The executing court refused to place reliance on the agreement and directed the judgment debtor to pay the entire balance as per the decree. That order is challenged in this revision.

(3.) It cannot be disputed that parties are entitled to enter into a compromise with reference to their rights and obligations under the decree. There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure which prevents the parties from entering into such a compromise. But O.21 R.2 provides that any agreement or adjustment has to be brought to the notice of the court and recorded by it at the instance of the decree holder and if he fails to do so at the instance of the Judgment debtor. If not so recorded no such agreement or adjustment can be recognised by the court executing the decree. All questions arising between the parties relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree are to be determined by the court executing the decree by virtue of S.47 of the Code. Learned counsel for revision petitioner contends (hat the compromise entered into between the parties stipulating the manner in which the decree amount was to be discharged is a matter arising under S.47 and as such to be decided by the executing court. On the other hand it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the decree holder that the agreement being one in satisfaction of the decree has to be recorded under O.21 R.2 of the Code, and if not the same cannot be recognised. In order to appreciate the contentions raised on both sides it is necessary to refer to the provisions contained in O.21 R.2 and S.47 of the Code and to see whether there is any antithesis' between these provisions.