A term of compromise relating to matters outside the scope of the suit which forms a consideration for the agreement as to the subject-matter of the suit, the entire compromise must be recorded and a decree passed in terms thereof as relating to the suit whether they otherwise relate to the subject-matter of the suit or not.

P. K. MOHANTI, J.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application arises out of an order passed on an objection petition under Section 47, C. P. C. filed by the Judgment-debtors. The short question that falls for consideration is with regard to the question of executability of the decree.

( 2 ) THE opposite parties as the plaintiffs filed Original Suit No. 247/72-I against the petitioners for a declaration that they are the sole owners in possession of the suit properties. The suit was compromised on the following terms:-

(a) The title of the defendants to the suit properties and their possession over the same be declared. (b) The defendants would pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the plaintiffs on or before. 31-5-77. (c) The defendants would pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 20,000/- out of the compensation money awarded in the Forest Claim Case pending in the High Court and 13. 84 acres of land including some of the suit lands would remain charged for realisation of the amount. (d) On payment of Rs. 20,000/- by the defendants within the stipulated period, the properties would be released from the charge. If, however, the defendants failed to pay the amount within the stipulated period, the plaintiffs would be entitled to realise the same by sale of the charged properties.

( 3 ) THE suit was decreed on 23-12-75 in terms of the compromise and the compromise petition was made a Part of the decree. The plaintiffs-decree holders filed Execution Case No. 142 of 1978 for realisation of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 20,000/ -. The defendants-Judgment debtors filed objection under Section 47, C. P. C contending that the portion of the compromise decree providing for payment of Rs. 20,000/- and charging the properties for realisation of the same was extraneous to the subject-matter of the suit and hence it could not be enforced by execution. The Executing Court by its order dated 7-12-79 overruled the objection on the finding that the provision in the decree for payment of Rs. 20,000/- to the plaintiffs was not extraneous to the suit and that the terms of compromise declaring the title and possession of the defendants and directing payment of Rs. 20,000/- to the plaintiffs were interconnected. Aggrieved by this decision, the plaintiffs-decree holders have come up in revision.

( 4 ) ORDER 23, Rule 3, C. P. C. has been amended by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, and it now specifically provides that whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is identical with the subject-matter of the suit or not, if it is between the parties and the compromise is a lawful one, the Court shall record the same. The words used in Rule 3 of Order 23, prior to its amendment in 1976, were "shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the suit. " By the Amending Act these words were substituted by the words "shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction, is the same as the subject-matter of the suit. " Under the amended rule the Court can pass a decree in terms of the agreement even though it includes matters not relating to the subject-matter of the suit provided that such extraneous matters relate to the parties to the suit, prior to the amendment there was a conflict of decisions as to whether the Executing Court could refuse to execute the decree where it gave effect to the terms of a compromise which did not relate to the suit. But after the amendment the position has been clarified and such a decree will now be executable. The amended provisions are however not applicable to the present case. According to Section 97 (2) (a) of the C. P. C (Amendment) Act. 104 of 1976 the amendment as well as substitution made in Order 23 of the First Sch. by Section 74 shall not apply to any suit or proceeding pending before the commencement of the said Section 74. By a notification published in