( 1 ) THIS is an application seeking review of the order passed by us on 6. 9. 2000 in FAO (OS) No. 127/2000.

( 2 ) ON 6. 9. 2000 appeal filed by the appellants against the order dated 23. 3. 2000 by learned Single Judge of this Court in I. A. Nos. 8038 and 8039 of 1998 in Suit No. 588 of 1975 was dismissed holding that there was no illegality and infirmity in the order dated 23. 3. 2000 passed by learned Single Judge.

( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, it will be necessary to give relevant facts only.

( 4 ) SUIT No,588 of 1975 was filed in May,1975 by late Shri Fateh Chand Kumar, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants for rendition of accounts of the dissolved partnership. LA. 7074/86 was filed in the said suit by the appellants and respondents 1 and 2 for recording of compromise. Ultimately on 7. 5. 1996 the suit was disposed of and decree was passed. Appeal against the said judgment and decree [rfa (OS) No. 10/1996] is stated to have been filed by the appellants, which is stated to be still pending. Respondents 1 and 2, who are defendants 2 and 3 have also filed an appeal against the judgment and decree [rfa (OS) No. 11/1996]. It is stated that none of the parties appended certified copy of the decree sheet alongwith their appeal since no decree was drawn by the Court.

( 5 ) THE reason for not draw Ing up of the decree appears to be non-supply of the requisite Court-fee stamp. According to the appellants, as per the terms of the compromise and as per the directions of the Court, additional Court-fee had to be paid by respondents 1 and 2 and since Court-fee was not being paid by them, decree was not being drawn by the Registry. This led the plaintiffs/appellants filing before learned Single Judge an application (I. A. 8038/98) seeking direction against respondents 1-2 for paying the requisite Court-fee so that decree be drawn. Similar request is stated to have been made by defendant No. 6 in his application (I. A. 3039 / 98 ). The primary ground on which respondents 1 and 2 opposed the applications was that all parties to the suit had filed appeals against the judgment passed by the court, which was pending adjudication before a Division Bench. Judgment had varied the terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties and had thereby increased the liability of respondents 1 and 2 against their consent. To the extent to which the judgment had increased their liability against their consent, the same was non-est.

( 6 ) LEARNED Single Judge by the impugned order dismissed the applications. It was observed that questioning the legality of the judgment on the ground that it was not permissible for the Court to vary the consent terms, is a matter, which is to be appropriately agitated before the Division Bench, which is seized of the appeals. Placing reliance upon the decision of Madras High Court in T. E. K. Muhammad amirudin v. T. R. Muhammad Ibrahim and Others, AIR 1957 Madras 667, it was held that no Court can compel any party to pay the additional Court-fee, even if rightly levied, when he does not want to pay it, for whatever reason. The only course open would be that suit might be dismissed. Accordingly, learned Single Judge further observed that if Court-fee is not paid, the suit may be dismissed. This order is under challenge at the behest of the appellants. As noticed above, on 6. 9. 2000 appeal was dismissed in limine observing that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order.

( 7 ) THIS review application was moved on 21. 11. 2000. Wenoticed the submissions of the appellants that their prayer was only to draw up decree in terms of the compromise. There was no impediment for the Court in drawing up of the decree in terms of the compromise. Even if direction could not be issued against any of the parties to pay additional Court-fee, there was no legal hurdle in not preparing the decree, which was the Court s obligation to draw The only