1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge disallowing an objection to the execution of a decree. The objection on which the judgment-debtor, who is the appellant, relied was that the claim under the decree had been adjusted by an agreement between the decree-holder and himself and the difficulty that lay in his way was that no such adjustment had been certified under Section 258 of the old Civil Procedure Code. He meets this by saying that by fraud he was prevented from learning that the adjustment of the decree had not been certified by the decree-holder in accordance with his promise. The difficulty that seems to us to stand in the way of the appellant is this. The provisions of Section 258 are express that no payment or adjustment shall be recognised unless it has been certified and, therefore, the alleged adjustment relied upon by the objector in the present case is no answer under Section 244 to an application for execution of a decree. Then, it is said that it can be treated as a substantive application under Section 258 of the Civil Procedure Code, but we do not think it can be so treated.
2. With regard to the case that the judgment-debtor was prevented from getting this adjustment certified owing to the fraud on the part of the decree-holder, all we need say is this, that if, in point of fact, the decree-holder agreed with the judgment-debtor that ho would not execute he decree and that the matter should be settled between them, then if he broke that agreement he would be liable for an action for damages just as any other person would who breaks an agreement. With these observations, we dismiss the appeal with costs. The hearing fee in this appeal is assessed at three gold monurs.