Lionel Leach, J. - (1.)THIS is an appeal by special leave from a decree of the Chief Court of Oudh, dismissing an appeal from an order passed by the Civil Judge of Lucknow in execution proceedings. The questions which arise are whether the Court's equitable jurisdiction to grant relief against penalties and forfeitures extends to the granting of relief in proceedings taken for the execution of a final decree for foreclosure, the decree having been passed by consent, and, if so, whether this is a proper case for the exercise of the jurisdiction.
(2.)ON January 16, 1934, the appellants mortgaged three houses in Lucknow to Raja Sir Mohammad Ejaz Rasul Khan to secure an advance of Rs. 82,000. Possession of the houses was given to the mortgage, who had the right to collect the rents from the tenants and, after providing for repairs, to appropriate the balance of the money received by him as rent in satisfaction of interest on the amount advanced. The mortgagors undertook to redeem the properties after five years by the payment in one sum of the total amount due. It was stipulated that if the mortgagors did not redeem within the five years, the mortgage would have the right to obtain through the Court a decree for foreclosure. It was subsequently agreed that the mortgagors should collect the rents and, after deducting outgoings, should pay the balance to the mortgage.
The mortgagors failed to redeem the mortgage at the end of the stipulated period of five years, and on May 16, 1939, the mortgage instituted a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Lucknow, claiming a decree for the payment of the Rs. 32,000 and in default a decree for foreclosure. He also claimed to be entitled to a further "sum of Rs. 7,000. which he averred was the balance of the rents collected by the mortgagors in accordance with the arrangement made subsequent to the mortgage.

On October 18, 1940, an agreement of compromise was entered into and a copy of the agreement was filed in Court. Clauses 1, 2 and 6 are important. They read as follows : 1. That the plaintiff has given up all the profits due to him and has reduced his claim to a sum of Rs. 20,300 inclusive of costs. 2.That a decree for the said sum of Rs. 20,300 shall be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants in accordance with the following conditions : (a) That the said sum of Rs. 20,800 shall be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff in two equal instalments of Rs. 10,150 each on February 15, 1941, and February 15, 1942. (b) That if the said two instalments are not paid by February IS, 1942, and a single pice remains due to the plaintiff on that date this decree shall be deemed to be a final decree for foreclosure in lieu of the full sum claimed in the suit and costs. The plaintiff shall be entitled to obtain possession of the houses mortgaged and if there is any difficulty in his so doing he shall be entitled to obtain possession through Court in execution of this decree. 6.That if at any time the defendants do not abide by the conditions of this compromise with regard to the payment of the money and make any application for further instalments then the reduction which the plaintiff has made in his claim shall be deemed to have been withdrawn and this decree shall be deemed to be a decree for foreclosure for the full amount claimed in the suit together with costs and profits occurring due since the date of the suit.

(3.)ON the same date a decree, described as a preliminary decree for foreclosure, was passed in accordance with the agreement.
On February 24, 1942, the mortgage applied for execution of the decree by delivery of possession. This was granted and possession was duly given. On March 16, 1942, the mortgagors filed objections to the execution under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. They asked the Court in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction to set aside the order for delivery of possession and the warrant issued in pursuance thereof and to give sufficient time for payment of the amount. They said that the value of the three houses was twenty-five times greater than the decretal amount of Rs. 39,000 and therefore the decree was penal. According to the mortgagee the value was about Rs. 80,000. The Civil Judge estimated the value to be Rs, 1,50,000 on the footing that property in Lucknow had greatly increased in value since 1923.