This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being No. 59 dated 24th February, 2010 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Second Court at Alipore, in Misc. Case No. 1091 of 2008 by which the petitioner’s objection under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the executability of a compromise decree was rejected by the Learned Executing Court. The judgment-debtor/petitioner is thus aggrieved by the said order. Hence she has come before this Court with this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Heard Mr. Ray Chowdhury, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate, appearing for the opposite party. Considered the materials on record including the order impugned. Let me now consider as to how far the Learned Executing Court was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case. Admittedly, the decree-holder/opposite party was a lessee in respect of the entire ground floor comprised of two flats each containing two bedrooms, one kitchen and three privies adding a total area measuring about 1913 square feet more or less at premises No. 18/57, Dovar Lane, Kolkata-700029 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) under the judgment-debtor/petitioner for a period of 99 years under a registered lease dated 16th April, 2004. Since the judgment debtor/ petitioner threatened to disturb the possession of the decree-holder/opposite party in the said premises and was also trying to evict the opposite party therefrom forcefully and illegally with the help of some antisocial elements, the opposite party herein filed a suit being Title Suit No. 304 of 2005 against the judgment-debtor/petitioner herein in the Court of the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Second Court at Alipore, inter alia praying for declaration of his lease hold right in respect of the suit property and for injunction for restraining the defendant/petitioner herein from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/opposite party herein in the suit premises.

The said suit was ultimately decreed on compromise, on the basis of the terms of settlement incorporated in the compromise petition signed by the plaintiff/opposite party and the constituted attorneys of the petitioner herein. In fact, the developers who were authorised to develop the suit property on the basis of an agreement entered into between the petitioner and the said developers are the constituted attorneys of the petitioner. Two sets of power of attorney were executed by the petitioner appointing the developers as her constituted attorneys for discharging different types of duties on her behalf. First of such power of attorney was executed by the petitioner on 2nd July, 2005 whereby the said attorneys were authorised to exercise all acts on behalf of the petitioner which are necessary for development of the said property including the power to negotiate with the tenants of the said premises for getting vacant possession thereof and to represent the petitioner in legal proceeding before the Court of law as her constituted attorneys and also to appoint Advocate for conducting and/or defending such suit for and on behalf of the petitioner. The said power of attorney which was in the nature of the general power of the attorney, was executed by the petitioner before a Notary Public. Subsequently, another power of attorney was executed and registered by the petitioner on 22nd November, 2005 whereby the developers were appointed as her constituted attorneys for negotiating the terms of sale of the said property and for selling the said property to the prospective purchasers and to take all necessary steps for execution and registration of sale deeds by presenting the deed of conveyance before the Sub-Registrar ans/or the Registrar having authority and also to receive consideration for such sale from the prospective purchasers on behalf