1. The decision in Arunachellam Chetty v. Ramanadhan Chettyi was in accordance with the earlier decision in Virupakshappa v. Shidappa and Basappa I.L.R. (1901) Bom. 109 though the latter decision was not actually cited. In the latter case, Sir Lawrence Jenkins, C. J. and Chandavarkar, J., held that proceedings in execution are proceedings in suits and that the compromise of such a proceeding is a compromise with reference to the suit. These decisions were followed in this Court in Shaik Davud Rowther v. Paramasami Pillai (1916)31MLJ207 .

2. In Fani v. Surendra (1921) 35 C.L.J. 9 the rules of Order 32, Seheudle 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which were in question were Rules 1, 3 and 11 and the decision did not turn on the applicability of Order 32, Rule 7. The same remarks apply to Rakhal Chandra De v. Mt. Kumidini Debya AIR1927Cal930 and Bansi Dhar v. Md. Suleman A.I.R. 1926 Lah. 490. In Ram Gulam Sahu v. Sham Sahai Das (1920) 5 Pat. L.J. 379 the learned Judges did not give a final opinion as to the applicability of Order 32, Rule 7 in execution, but held that, if it did not apply, the principles of it would apply. We do not think that the authority of Arunachellam Chetty