1. This revision is directed against the order dated 03.08.2016 passed by Sub Judge-VII, Ranchi, in Misc. Case No.121 of 2015 arising out of Execution Case No.4 of 2012, rejecting the application filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would be evident from the annexures (annexed in the present application) that both the parties had entered into a compromise on the terms and conditions enumerated, therein and incorporated Clause D and E as under :

“D. That both the parties have duly come in possession of their respective schedule of land.

E. That now none of the parties have any claim or concern with respect to the schedule of land allotted to the other parties.”

It is argued that plain reading of the aforesaid clauses leaves no room for doubt that both the parties came in possession of the portion of land mentioned in the schedule of the land consequently nothing remained to be done by the parties in satisfaction of the compromise decree, therefore, the levying of execution was not maintainable. To buttress his argument learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Pushpa De