- (1.) This appeal is by the judgment-debtor is against the order of the trial Court confirming the sale in favour of auction-purchaser.
(2.) A compromise was arrived at on the 26th of October, 1968, in the following terms :- "As per statements of the parties' counsel, I allow the objection petition and set aside the sale subject to the condition that the judgment-debtor deposits the decretal amount with up-to-date interest in Court for payment to the decree-holder or pay the same to decree-holder in Court on or before 21st December, 1968. Failing that, objection petition shall stand dismissed and the decretal amount put to Rs. 13,365/- shall be paid to the decree-holder and the balance of Rs. 135/- shall be credited to the Government on account of auction-fee. The execution application is dismissed as unsatisfied for the time being." A sum of Rs. 13,500/- was deposited by the judgment-debtor on the 11th of December, 1968, that is well before the date fixed in the compromise. The matter then came up before the Court on the 5th of April, 1969, and on that date, the following order was passed :- "Present. - Parokar and the judgment-debtor. The amount has not been deposited and the terms of the compromise have been violated. In terms of the compromise, the sale is liable to be confirmed for Rs. 13,500/- in favour of Sucha Singh. The deposit by the judgment-debtor may be retained for the time being. No further order for deposit can be passed. The application is filed." On the same day, the balance amount payable under the compromise was paid by the judgment-debtor to the decre-holder, that is Rs. 4,921.61. Against the order passed on the 5th of April, 1969, the judgment-debtor has come up in appeal to this Court.
(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor is that the Court should have accepted the balance of Rs. 4,921.61 tendered in Court and later on paid to the decree-holder. The Court, however, did not do so on the short ground that, that would be varying the terms of the compromise. The rule seems to be well settled that time fixed in a compromise decree for payment of money cannot be altered under Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Court. The parties can no doubt alter the compromise. See in this connection the decision in Mooriantakath Ammoo v. Matathankandy Vatakkayil Pokkan., 1940 AIR(Mad) 817. Wadworth, J., who delivered the jdugment, observed :- "When under a compromise decree, a certain time is fixed for the performance of an obligation under the decree the Court, has, by virtue of Section 148, no power to vary the terms of the decree by granting an extension of time, and if the time stipulated is an essential part of the terms of the contract embodied in the decree and not a mere threat of a penal nature, there is no power in the Court to make a new contract for the parties fixing some other time than that which has been stipulated.";