PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & MANMOHAN SINGH, JJ.

1. The present execution first appeal assails the order dated 28th July, 2009 passed in Execution Petition No.95/2003 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the execution petition.

2. The facts of the case leading to filing of the present appeal in execution petition are that the appellants filed the suit bearing CS(OS) No.938/1990 before this Court, praying for permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondent and seeking to recover the possession of the land on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 25th November, 1980 which had been executed by the appellants with the respondent and a sum of `11 lac had been received from the respondent towards part consideration of the said agreement. The total consideration had been agreed at `34.50 lac. The balance amount of the agreed sale consideration was required to be paid by the respondent to the appellants at the time of execution of the sale deed, i.e. appellants were seeking avoidance of the agreement.

3. On 8th March, 1991 a compromise arrived at between the parties in the said suit, in the form of application under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which had been signed by both the parties and their respective counsel. The said application came up before the Court on 21st March, 1991. The learned Single Judge after recording the statements of the parties had decreed the suit in terms of the compromise and by allowing the said application.

4. It is necessary for us to refer the terms and conditions mentioned in the compromise application which read as under:-

“2. That the parties have agreed to settle the present dispute. The plaintiff shall return the sum of `11,00,000/- to the defendant and simultaneously the defendant shall deliver back possession of 6,525 sq. yds. of land to the plaintiffs. The defendant shall also not have any interest in the remaining 2,175 sq. yds. of land which is with the tenant as aforesaid running CHANDRALOK cinema. 3. That the parties have agreed that the aforesaid transaction shall be completed within one week from today. None of the parties shall thereupon have claim against each other in regard to the aforesaid agreement to sell dated 25-11-1980 and the agreement shall be treated as a DEAD LETTER.”

5. In view of the above said terms mentioned in the application, the suit of the appellants was disposed of vide order dated 21st March, 1991. The application was exhibited as Ex.C1 and it was specifically recorded that the parties would be bound by the terms of the agreement and Ex.C1 would form part of the decree.

6. The respondent wrote a registered letter dated 30th October, 2001 to one of the appellants in reply to letter dated 15th October, 2001, namely, Sh.Suresh Kumar Malhotra informing him that since his father Sh.M.K.Malhotra had expired, as such it was necessary that before possession of land in question was handed over to the legal heirs, a Succession Certificate was required to be obtained from the competent Court of law. No response to the said letter was given by the appellants.

7. The appellants thereafter in February, 2003 filed the execution petition bearing Ex.P.No.95/2003 seeking relief from the Court to dispossess the judgment-debtor/respondent from the property in question and to put the decree-holders/appellants in possession of the property to satisfy the decree.

8. It was mentioned in para-3 of the execution petition that the appellants would pay the sum of `11 lac to the respondent as and when the respondent would deliver the possession of the land in question as earlier the appellants had been demanding the possession of the property from the respondent who failed to do so and had been withholding the same for the last about 12 years.

9. Objections to the execution petition were filed by the respondent under Order XXI, Rule 23 read with Section 151 CPC wherein it was stated by the respondent that as per the compromise decree passed on 21st Mar