1. At the time when this case was called for hearing the applicant's counsel was not present. But as he had already concluded his argument before me on the last date of hearing, the matter has to be disposed of on its merits.
2. The application is one for the revision of an order passed by the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Allahabad allowing an adjustment between the parties in execution proceedings. The decree under execution was a money decree pronounced on 16th December 1926 and payable by instalments, the first of which fell due on 15th March 1927. That instalment having failed, the decree-holder put his decree into execution. But on 25th August 1932 the judgment-debitor made an application to the Court to the effect that the matter had been adjusted between the parties by a compromise by which instalments were to be again allowed. Originally the decree had been payable by four six-monthly instalments, and under the settlement alleged to have been arrived at the instalments were still to be six-monthly. The decree-holder on being called on to reply to this application, denied that there had been settlement; but the Court after recording the statements of the parties, accepted the judgment-debtor's statement and passed the order which is now the subject of this application.
3. It was argued on behalf of the applicant that the Court in execution proceedings had no jurisdiction to amend the decree and I was referred to a Full Bench decision of this Court, namely, the case of Gobardhan DDas v. Dau Dayal 1932 All. 273. That however was a case in which the Court had allowed the parties in execution to substitute a new decree for the decree originally passed. The learned Chief Justice remarked on p. 586:
In some capos the Courts have gone so far as to hold that the original decree can be altogether superseded by a new arrangement entered into in the execution department enabling the decree-holder to execute the substituted decree. I would say with great respect that such a position is ulterly untenable. The original decree cannot be altered or varied by the parties, even with the sanction of the Court.
4. In the present case the nature of the decree, which was a money decree payable by six monthly instalments, has not been altered. All that has happened has been that the decree-holder has agreed to allow further time. I have no doubt therefore that the Court was fully justified in allowing the adjustment and there is no force in the application, which is dismissed with costs.