( 1 ) THIS revision is filed against the order of the learned District Munsif, sangareddy in E. P. No. 23 of 1991 in O. S. No. 178 of 1989.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF is the petitioner before this Court. He filed the suit O. S. No. 178 of 1989 for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from engaging any other agency or itself to complete the work.

( 3 ) IT is necessary to refer to certain facts leading to the filing of the suit before considering the issue that arose for consideration in the revision petition.

( 4 ) TOWNSHIP Package-II (Konkur) work was entrusted to the petitioner by the respondents, vide work order dated 14-6-1988. The petitioner undertook the work, but, however, since he was expected to get the drawings and samples approved by the respondent No. 3, there was considerable delay in execution of the work. According to the petitioner, the delay was entirely due to the default of the respondents in giving approval. According to the work order, the entire work should be completed within 9 to 12 months reckoned from the 15th day of issue of Letter of Intent. Since the work could not be completed within the stipulated period, the 1st respondent issued a letter dated 27-9-89 rescinding the work order issued in favour of the petitioner. Since there was a threat of the respondents engaging the services of some third party contractor to complete the work, without settling the bills of the petitioner, petitioner filed the suit o. S. 178 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sangareddy. However, before the learned District Munsif, a compromise memo was filed by both the parties and the learned District Munsif passed a decree in terms of the memo of compromise. The judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif reads as under: "judgment: The both parries have settled the matter and filed a compromise memo. In view of the compromise memo, the suit is disposed without costs. " decree: 1. That the suit be and is hereby disposed of without costs as per terms and conditions of the compromise memo which is appended herewith. "

( 5 ) THE memo of compromise entered into by the parties reads as follows:" Memo in pursuance of the 1st defendant s letter dt. 13-10-1989 issued to the plaintiff, the parries are agreeable to be present on 23-10-1989 at 10-00 a. m. for taking joint measurements of the work executed by the plaintiff and the materials left on site and complete the same by 23-11-1989 to enable the preparation of the plaintiff s final bills and settlement in accordance with the terms and conditions of the work order issued to the plaintiff in respect of the subject contract. "

( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the parties met on 23-10-89 as per the compromise memo and joint measurements of the work executed by the petitioner and the materials left on the site were taken. However, as per the compromise memo, the defendants have not settled the bills and therefore he was compelled to file E. P. 23 of 1991 claiming Rs. 1,14,90,885-20. The Execution petition was dismissed by the learned District Munsif on the ground that the compromise decree is not executable and that the Court which passed the decree has no pecuniary jurisdiction.

( 7 ) THE main contention of the petitioner is that the original executing court cannot go behind the decree and he relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta high Court in Gosto Behari Pramanik vs. Malati Sen wherein it was held that a decree based on compromise between the parties to a suit is not void or a nullity merely because it involves an amount which exceeds the pecuniary limits of jurisdiction of the Court that passed it. He also brought to my notice a decision of this Court in Vanthala Appannammanayaralu vs. Bandi Sreeramulu wherein it was held that "the decision of a Court shall not be reversed purely on technical grounds like lack of teritorial or pecuniary jurisdiction unless it has resulted in failure of justice and the objection to the lack of