The central legal point established in the judgment is that a court executing a decree can enforce a lawful agreement entered into between the decree-holder and the judgment debtor in the course of execution proceedings, if the agreement governs the liability under the decree and relates to the manner of enforcement.

S. Sankarasubban, J.

This revision petition is filed against the orders in E.A. Nos. 125 of 1992 and 343 of 1997 in E.P. 140 of 1984 in O.S.116 of 1982 of the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. 4th judgment debtor in E.A. 125 of 1992 and the petitioner in E.A. 343 of 1997 are the petitioners in the C.R.P.

2. M/s. St. Don Bosco Rice and Oil Mills was a partnership concern and the petitioners were partners of the firm. For the purpose of raising funds for the firm, a loan was availed of from the first respondent-Bank and as a security 1 acre and 81/4 cents of property comprised in Survey No. 544/3 of Vadama Village was mortgaged by deposing the title deeds. The property belonged to the first petitioner. Since the loan amount could not be repaid, the first respondent instituted O.S.116 of 1982 before the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. M/s. St. Don Bosco Rice and Oil Mills and 6 others were made parties. The suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 33,759.35.

3. For executing the decree, E.P. 140 of 1984 was filed by the Bank. The decree schedule property was put to auction and it was purchased by the decree holder Bank itself. The petitioners filed petition to set aside the sale, mainly on the ground that the property was worth nearly Rupees seventeen lakhs and it was sold only for Rs. 83,058/-. While the petition to set aside the sale was pending, there was a negotiation with the petitioners and the decree holder-Bank to settle the matter after receiving the amount due. As per the agreement, the judgment debtors are to open a Saving Account in the Bank and the petitioners were directed to deposit amounts in the Bank. According to the petitioners, they have deposited so far Rs. 1,73,000/- in that account. In the meanwhile the petition to set aside the sale was dismissed. But on behalf of the decree holder, the then Manager of the Bank promised to obtain sanction from the Head Office for re conveyance of the property to the petitioner No. 1. On calculation, it was found that an amount of Rs. 1,48,000/- was due as per the decree in O.S.116 of 1982. The petitioners further assert that order from the Head Office was also issued to re-convey the property. But subsequently the Bank showed reluctance to re-convey the property. Then the Bank filed E.A. 125 of 1992 to get delivery of the property with the help of police. The petitioners objected to the delivery stating that the Bank had agreed to re-convey the property. The Bank took up the contention that the amounts were deposited not with a specific direction that it should be adjusted towards the decree debt in O.S.116 of 1982. It was stated that there was another suit as O.S.158 of 1982 and if the amount covered by that decree is also deposited, the Bank will think of re-conveyance.

In E. A. 125 of 1992, the Court below ordered delivery with police help. Then the 2nd petitioner filed E. A. 343 of 1997 to direct the first respondent-Bank to produce in the Court the files containing the sanction letter for re-conveyance of the property and the file relating to M/s. St. Don Bosco Rice and Oil Mills. That application was dismissed, holding that the petition was not maintainable. It is against the abovesaid two orders that the present revision is filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Court below was wrong in holding that the petition, E. A. 343 of 1997, was not maintainable. According to the petitioners, the parties could get into compromise at any time with regard to subject matter of execution. Here, the subject matter of execution was the property and the agreement was that if the decree amount was paid to the decree holder, the decree holder would re-convey the property. There was nothing wrong in reaching to the compromise arrived at. On the other hand, the counsel for the Bank submitted that it is a case where the decree holder brought the property into sale and has purchased the property. The sale has been confirmed and the only thing which is remaining