1. Heard learned counsel for both sides. The revision application is admitted and taken up for hearing finally with the consent of both sides.

2. The present revision application has been filed by the petitioner–Judgment Debtor against order dated 23.10.2013, passed below Exh.14, under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC for short) in Special Darkhast No.6/2012 pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed, rejecting the application of petitioner– Judgment Debtor and holding that the execution petition was maintainable.

3. The case of the petitioner is that, between the parties there was Special Civil Suit No.13/2006 for partition and separate possession and in that matter compromise took place on 6.12.2007. As per clause 4 of the compromise, Judgment Debtor had to pay Rs.6 Lakhs to the respondent–Decree Holder before executing sale deed of the property concerned in favour of third party. It was stated in the clause that decree holder will give consent on sale deed only after receipt of the amount. According to the petitioner- Judgment Debtor, he paid the decree holder Rs.3,50,000/- on 6.11.2008 and got an agreement written, wherein amount was acknowledged. It was assured that, remaining amount of Rs.2,50,000/- would be paid on the date of execution of sale deed. The concerned sale deed came to be executed on 11.11.2008 and before that, the balance of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid to the decree holder in cash, and in view of the same, the decree holder and his family members signed on the sale deed as consenting party. In spite of such satisfaction of the compromise decree, after four years the decree holder filed the execution proceedings. Thus, the decree holder raised objections that the amount has been paid and the decree was satisfied and no more could be executed.

4. The trial Court allowed parties to lead evidence, and after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner Judgment Debtor and directing the execution to proceed further. Thus, this Civil Revision Application has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Judgment Debtor referred to para 4 of the compromise (Exhibit A), which was recorded in the Special Civil Suit to raise the point that the decree holder was to receive the money and only then he would give consent and as the sale deed was executed (Exhibit B), which contains the signature of decree holder and his family members, it shows that the amount was received before the sale deed or else the decree holder would not have given the consent. At the time of arguments, looking to the judgment of the trial Court, it was felt necessary to refer to Exh.36, the agreement, vide which the petitioner Judgment Debtor claimed that on 6.11.2008 he had paid the decree holder Rs.3,50,000/-. Learned counsel for respondents has produced photo copy of the concerned document and the same is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. As per the learned counsel for petitioner- Judgment Debtor, by said agreement, the initial amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid on 6.11.2008 and balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid in cash on 11.11.2008 before the sale deed was executed. Learned counsel referred to the evidence of Latabai, wife of respondent Decree Holder as recorded in the trial Court (Exhibit F) to point out her cross-examination, where she stated that, it was true that Rs.6 Lakhs were received and so her mother-in-law, husband and she had signed the sale deed. Relying on such evidence, learned counsel for petitioner has criticized the judgment of the trial Court to say that it was not maintainable and that, satisfaction of the payment of decretal amount should be recorded. The learned counsel for petitioner relied on the case of Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Ltd. (supra) & ors. Vs. Khanderao Ramrao Shivalkar & ors., reported in 1999(2) Mh.L.J. 317 to submit that the Court can look into evidence rega