Appellant ' promise decree shall become payable and the landlord Sitaram Banerji and Arun Kumar Dutt__ would be entitled to recover tbe same by executing the for Respondents compromise decree: Judgment --This is an appeal on behalf of the Held that the holding of the sale under the Patni judgment-debtor and it arises out of an objection Regulation was not a condition precedent to the enforce ment of the default clause The ground on which the under s 47, Civil P C , to the execution of a default clause would come into operation was the default decree The objection waa overruled by tbe in payment of the dues for which the sale proceedings learned Subordinate Judge of Birbhum by his were instituted Where the sale was held the default clause would come into operation from the date of the order dated 4th September 1946 The decree in sale Where the sale was not held it would come into question had been passed on 24th March 1945 in force on the date which was advertised for holding the a rent suit by consent of parties # A petition of sale [Para 5] compromise was put in on that date which was (b) Civil P C (1908), O 23, R 3 -- Compromise made a part of the decree The compromise under--Scope of decree as well as the petition of compromise 0$der 23, R 3 makes it clear that where a suit is ad justed by a lawful agreement or compromise, though shows that the claim in the suit was for a sum the agreement or compromise is recorded in its entirety, of Rs 71,947-10-3 on account of rent of a Patni the decree which the Court passes in the suit is only a mehal for the period from 1346 B s to the decree in accordance with the compromise so far as it month of Jaistha 1349 B S calculated at the relates to the suit : 6 9

AIR 1919 PC 79

All India Reporter, Privy Council

Privy Council

India

Cases Referring to this Case