Srivastava, J. - (1.) This is a judgment-debtor's appeal and raises an important question relating to execution of decrees.
(2.) A compromise was arrived at in this case between the parties which provided: "That the plaintiff and the defendants have arrived at a compromise and accordingly they hereby pray that the suit be decreed with full costs (Contested) and interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 6 per cent per annum." A decree was passed in terms of this compromise. The decree-holder got the decree transferred for execution to another Court and applied for execution. The judgment-debtor a firm then put in an objection in which it put forward a pre-decree agreement and urged that in view of that agreement it was not open, to the decree-holder to get the decree executed. According to the judgment- debtor the decree had been passed in pursuance of an agreement the terms of which were as follows : ' "A That the parties should state before Court that they have arrived at a compromise and a decree be passed. B. That the defendants shall not press their pleas for adjudication. C. That the plaintiff shall realise the decretal amounts from: (i) The attached Coal Bills of Rs. 3,674/5/-due to Rajendra Kumar Aron Prop. Krishna Raj Trading Corporation, from the Executive Engineer, Colonisation Dn. Mcerut. (ii) The attached Coal Bills of Rs. 2,415/8/9 due to the aforesaid objector (Rajendra Kumar Aron) from the District Co-operative Development Federation Ltd. Fatehpur. (Under District Planning Officer, Fatehpur). (iii) The sum of Rs. 5,569/14/6 from Messrs. Maheshwari Rice and Oil Mills, Fatehpur which was due to Rajendra Kumar Aron Prop. Krishna Raj Trading Corporation. (iv) Follow the following procedure to the extent of Rs. 4,000/- (Rs. Four Thousands only) only. (a) Sri Rajendra Kumar Avon shall secure orders and help to secure orders for the supply of Coal for the plaintiff from various Government and Semi-Government departments and the commissions thus earned by the plaintiff shall be credited to the account of Rajendra Kumar Aron. (b) That it was further settled that Rejendra Kumar Aron shall make cash payments after one year or so by instalments of Rs. 1,000/- yearly to meet any deficiency that may occur in the payment of Rs. 4,000/- from the commission, fee specified above. (c) That Smt Krishna Rani shall not he personally liable to pay any amount and that the decree-holder shall not execute the decree against her or her property. (d) That Rajendra Kumar Aron shall aid the decree-holder in the realisation of money from Executive Engineer, Colonisation Dn. Mowana, D. G. P. F. or D. P. O. Fatehpur and M/s. Maheshwari Rice Mills, Fatehpur. (e) That the decree shall not be executed against Rajendra Kumar Aron also for the sums of money which are specified, above till the decree-holder has exhausted all his remedies against the above mentioned three sources. (f) That the decree-holder shall not execute the decree against Rajendra Kumar Aron also for the remaining sum of Rs. 4,000/- only so long as Rajendra Kumar Aron is able to secure orders for the supply of Coal for the plaintiff. (g) That it was further settled that the attached property at Khaga Dt. Fetehpur shall not be put to sale as it belonged to Sri Virendra Kumar, brother of Rajendra Kumar Aron." The decree-holder denied the agreement set up and raised a preliminary objection that an unconditional decree having been passed, it was not open to the judgment-debtor to rely on a pre-decree agreement and on that basis to object to the execution of the decree. The preliminary objection of the decree-holder found favour with the learned Civil Judge, who rejected the objection without going into the question whether the agreement set up had in fact been arrived at or not. The correctness of that order of rejection is being challenged by the present appeal.
(3.) Relying on certain decisions of the Madras High Court the learned counsel for the appellant urged that the view of the learned Civil Judge about the judgment-debtor's right to set up a pre-decree agreement in the execution department was not correct and contended that it was open to the judgment-debtor to show that there was such a pre-decree agreement which was binding on the parties and in view of which the decree-holder could proceed in execution only in the manner agreed upon and not in the way in which it wanted to proceed. Learned counsel conceded that under Section 47, C. P. C. it was not open to the executing Court to go behind the decree. He, however, contended that in the present case the judgment-debtor did not want the Courts to go behind the decree. It did not question the decree at all and did not want to vary it in any manner. The only thing it contended was that the manner of the executability of the decree had been agreed upon between the parties and the decree could be executed only in that manner and in no other. He urged that Section 47, C. P. C. could not bar such an objection.;