JUDGMENT

L. MOHAPATRA, J. : The judgment-debtor filed this writ appli¬cation challenging the order dated 28.1.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 56 of 1997 dismissing an application for amendment of the petition filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the revisional order dated 16.11.2001 dismiss¬ing the revision.

2. The case of the petitioner is that Schedule ‘A’ proper¬ty was originally the self-acquired property of one Gajendra Acharya, who has died in the meantime. Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are the two sons of said Gajendra Acharya. Gajendra Acharya during his life time proposed to sale the suit property to the present writ petitioner and a sale deed was executed and regis¬tered by Gajendra Acharya in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said ‘A’ schedule property for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/-. After execution of the sale deed, the petitioner is in possession of the same. After death of Gajendra Acharya, the opposite party No. 1 filed Title Suit No. 164 of 1979 against the petitioner to set aside the aforesaid sale deed and ultimately, the suit was decreed on compromise. After the suit was decreed, an Execution Case was levied by the opposite party No. 1. The compromise decree was challenged on different grounds in appeal and was ultimately carried to this Court in Second Appeal No. 109 of 1984. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal and the Second Appeal was also dismissed by this Court. In the Execution Case, a petition under Section 47 of the C.P.C. was filed by the petitioner and during pendency of the said petition, an application for amendment of the petition filed under Section 47 of the C.P.C. was filed. It is the case of the petitioner that during pendency of the Execution Case though an application under Section 47 of the C.P.C. has been filed by her challenging the executability of the decree, the petitioner having purchased 8 annas share in the property form the suit land under a registered sale deed dated 2.2.1996, the application under Section 47 C.P.C. was sought to be amended. The said petition was rejected by the Executing Court and a revision was filed against the order passed by the Executing Court. The revision having been dismissed, the petitioner has approached this Court in this writ application.

3. Shri Mukherji, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has challenged both the orders on the ground that though the suit had been decreed on compromise and the petitioner lost in all the forums, during pendency of the execution case, the opposite party No. 2 sold half share in the property to the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 2.2.1996. In view of the subsequent development that took place during the pendency of the Execution Case, the compromise decree in respect of the said property purchased by the petitioner has become in-executable and therefore the amendment sought for in the application filed under Section 47 of the C.P.C. should have been allowed.

Shri Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, on the other hand, contended that the opposite party No. 2 was not a party to the compromise having no interest in the property and therefore any sale made by him does not affect the right of the decree holder-opposite party in executing the de¬cree. It was specifically contended by Shri Mishra that the decree was not invalid on the date it was passed and the subsequent development alleged to have been taken place does not affect the decree at all. As the opposite party No. 2 had no interest in the property, he did not contest the suit and consequently he was not made a party in the compromise decree also.

4. It appears form the record that Title Suit No. 164 of 1979 was filed in the Court of the then First Munsif by opposite party No. 1 alone. The suit was decreed on compromise. The petitioner challenged the compromise decree in appeal and having lost the sam