GITA MITTAL, J.

“The judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to “the primordial necessity of order in social life”. Wide enough in all conscience is the field of discretion that remains.”

- Benjamin Cardozo's ‘The Nature of the Judicial Process’ [1949, page 141]

1. The appellant before us is aggrieved by and assails the order dated 14th November, 2014 whereby the learned Single Judge, while disposing of Execution Petition No. 405/2014, has held that the petition seeking execution of the order dated 6th November, 2013 accepting the settlement dated 30th October, 2013 and passing a decree, was not maintainable. This order was premised on the conclusion by the learned Single Judge that the settlement dated 30th October, 2013, arrived at between the parties in the Delhi High Court