These civil revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 15.09.2010 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, in E.A.No.29 of 2010 in E.P.No.63 of 2009 in O.S.No.21 of 1994.

2. The petitioner in CRP.NPD.No.142 of 2012 and the respondent in CRP.NPD.No.3249 of 2013 had instituted the suit against the respondent in CRP.NPD.No.142 of 2012 and the petitioner in CRP.NPD.No.3249 of 2013 for specific performance. After trial, the suit was decreed on 11.04.2000. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.302 of 2000 before this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, a settlement was reached between the parties and a fresh agreement of sale dated 30.07.2008 was entered into between the parties. In pursuance of the agreement, the appeal was withdrawn as settled out of Court.

3. As per the agreement of sale dated 30.07.2008, the decree holder has agreed to pay to the Judgment Debtor a sum of Rs.2,10,00,000/- towards fresh sale consideration and complete the transaction within a period of three months. According to the Judgment Debtor, the Decree Holder has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale dated 30.07.2008 however, he laid the execution proceedings in E.P.No.63 of 2009.

4. In the execution petition, the Judgment Debtor filed an application in E.A.No.29 of 2010 under Section 47 C.P.C. to declare the decree made in O.S.No.21 of 1994 as inexecutable. The Decree Holder opposed the application stating that after the withdrawal of the appeal and according to the decree passed in the suit, he has filed an execution petition for getting the sale deed and the present application is vexatious and has no merits.

5. The Decree Holder has not denied the settlement, reached during the pendency of the appeal in A.S.No.302 of 2000 and execution of the fresh agreement of sale dated 30.07.2008. The Executing Court, while dismissing E.A.No.29 of 2010, however, directed the Decree Holder to deposit a sum of Rs.2,10,00,000/- to the credit of the Execution petition. Aggrieved by the order, both the Judgment debtor and the Decree Holder have preferred these civil revision petitions.

6. Heard Sri. T.R. Rajaraman, learned counsel for the Decree Holder and Sri. Yasodh Varadhan, learned counsel for the Judgment Debtor and perused the materials.

7. Sri. T.R. Rajaraman, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit for specific performance was decreed on 11.04.2000 and the appeal was withdrawn by the defendant on 18.08.2008 and as per the subsequent agreement, the Judgment Debtor has not fulfilled his obligations and therefore, the Decree Holder laid an execution petition on 16.12.2008; that the subsequent agreement was not filed before the Court and it was not certified and therefore, as per Order 21 Rule 3 C.P.C, the subsequent agreement cannot be acted upon.

8. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior counsel has relied on the following decisions;

(i) In 2000 (IV) CTC 252 (Lakshmi Narayanan Vs. S.S. Pandian), wherein paragraphs 14 & 18 reads as follows;

"14. In a case where parties compromise after the decree in of the decree depends upon the intention of the parties, which is a mixed question of law and fact and has to be determined by the executing court on an application under Section 47 of the C.P.C. on interpretation of the decree and the compromise in the light of the facts and circumstances of such case. If on such determination it is gathered that the intention of the parties is to extinguish the decree and either the decree holder or the judgment-debtor got the compromise recorded under Rule 2 of Order 21 of the C.P.C. by the court whose duty it is to execute the decree, the execution of the decree cannot be proceeded with by the executing court. But if the intention of the parties is to keep the decree alive and to give effect to it in the manner agreed upon between the parties in the compromise, the decree will be given effect to a