R. Mahadevan, J.

These appeals are filed against the order dated 18.09.2009 passed by this Court in A. Nos. 1293 and 1294 of 2008 in E.P. No. 132 of 2003 and A. Nos. 1295 and 1296 of 2008 in E.P. No. 134 of 2003.

2. The facts arising out of this appeals are as under:-

(i) Originally, two execution proceedings in E.P. Nos. 132 and 134 of 2003 were ordered by the learned Master on 11.01.2008 directing the first respondent therein (first appellant herein) to pay a sum of Rs. 30,36,923/- individually, and the first and second respondents therein (the first and second appellants herein) to pay a sum of Rs. 5,10,750/- jointly or severally on or before 11.02.2008, failing which an order of attachment in respect of the properties of judgment debtors/respondents mentioned in the Execution Petition Nos. 132 and 134 of 2003 would be passed automatically.

(ii) The judgment debtors/appellants herein have filed applications in A.Nos. 1293 to 1296 of 2008 before this Court to set aside the orders passed by the learned Master in the execution petitions, stating that the decree passed in C.S.No. 895 of 2003 is a compromise decree and it embodies the terms of understanding arrived between the parties to regulate their affairs amicably. It also grants rights to both parties and imposes obligation upon both parties and unless a party fulfils the obligation cast upon him, that party cannot seek to enforce any obligation owned to him. The compromise decree casts an obligation upon the judgment debtors/plaintiffs to supply a flat to the defendants at a particular place. It also gives the plaintiffs the option to supply a flat at any other place, subject to the defendants identifying the same and indicating their intention to the plaintiffs. The defendants never identified any alternate site or alternate flat so as to enable the plaintiffs to convey the same to the defendants. The plaintiffs are ready to convey only an appropriate flat to the defendants upon the defendants' suitably identifying the same. The defendants were also liable to issue No Objection Certificate to enable the plaintiffs to obtain electricity connection for the flats in the suit property. But the defendants deliberately refused to give NOC and on account of the same, the plaintiffs were put to irreparable loss. Since the defendants were guilty of breach of promise, which they had agreed to perform under the compromise decree, they cannot enforce reciprocal promise. The compromise decree comprises of several cross obligations. The execution petitioners, having failed to perform their obligations, cannot compel the plaintiffs to perform their obligations. It was further contended that only one of the defendants came forward to file the execution petitions without the written authority of the other and hence, it is barred under Order 39, Rule 18 of the Original Side Rules.

(iii) When the applications came up before this Court on 18.09.2009, this Court, referred to the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2001 in C.S.No. 895 of 2000 and Tr.A.Nos. 1706 to 1709 of 2001, which was passed based on a memo of compromise signed between the parties. Subsequent to the passing of the decree, insolvency notices were issued in I.N.Nos. 187 and 184 of 2004 and thereafter, Application Nos. 234 and 235 of 2005 were filed to set aside the insolvency notices and those applications were allowed. Against the said order, appeals in OSA Nos. 202 and 203 of 2006 were filed and a Division Bench of this Court, held that for the issuance of notice under Section 9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, there must be a decree or an order for payment of money. In the present case, since the Court was unable to notice any decree or order for payment of money, the order to set aside the insolvency notices were confirmed in the OSAs. But, since the terms of compromise was not adhered, execution proceedings were initiated, in which the learned Master, passed an order of attachment on 11.01.2008 as state