Premature execution can be a valid ground for dismissal, and objections under Section 47, C. P. C. can be allowed on this basis.

( 1 ) SUIT No. 501 of 1995 was filed by the respondent No. 1 against the revisionist and other respondents for several reliefs of permanent and mandatory injunctions. The suit was decided between the revisionist and respondent No. 1 on 6. 9. 1996 on the basis of the compromise dated 4. 9. 1996. Annexure-2 to the affidavit. The order of the Civil Judge deciding the suit in terms of the compromises is Annexure-3 to the affidavit. The respondent No. 1 moved an application for the execution of decree for recovery of money in which the revisionist filed objections under section 47, C. P. C. The objections have been rejected by the impugned order dated 21. 7. 1997 by civil Judge, Allahabad. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.

( 2 ) I have heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned senior advocate for the revisionist and Sri A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record.

( 3 ) SEVERAL legal pleas have been raised by Sri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the revisionist and it is contended that the decree is not executable. The learned counsel has referred to the allegations of the plaint and the compromise decree and it is contended that property has been transferred by compromise decree thereby the payment of court fee and the stamp duty has been evaded : that therefore, this compromise decree is illegal and cannot be enforced and is also against the provisions of Section 17 (2) (6) of the Indian Registration Act. The compromise is also against the public policy and, therefore, is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.

( 4 ) IT is further contended that the reliefs sought in the suit are for mandatory and permanent injunctions only and the money decree could not have been passed ; that the decree is executable under Order XXI, Rule 32, C. P. C. only. The execution for recovery of money in accordance with the compromise by attachment and sale of property is not maintainable.

( 5 ) THE other contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that six months time was granted in the decree for the payment of money. The execution is premature having been filed within the period of six months from the date of the decree.

( 6 ) IT is further contended that the respondent Nos. 2 to 14 are the actual owners of the property. There was only an agreement in favour of the respondent No. 1 and a power-of-attorney and therefore, he had no right to transfer the property ; that, therefore, compromise entered by him is illegal ; that the compromise is also Invalid as ft does not comply the provision of Section 17 (2) (6) of the Indian Registration Act. On the basis of these arguments, it has been contended that the execution is not maintainable and is liable to be struck off ; that the court below has erred in rejecting the objections of the revisionist under Section 47. C. P. C.

( 7 ) AS against this, it has been argued by Sri A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 that no such pleas were taken in the objections under Section 47, C. P. C. ; that, therefore, they cannot be raised for the first time in this revision.

( 8 ) IT is further contended that after the impugned order dated 21. 7. 1997. two other orders have been passed in the execution and therefore, this revision has become infructuous.

( 9 ) I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel. The two orders have been passed in the execution after the impugned order, which are Annexures-CA5 and CA-6. These orders are regarding the proceedings with the execution after the rejection of the objection under section 47, C. P. C. They are consequential orders after rejection of objection under Section 47, c. P. C. and because of the fact that the execution proceedings have been started, this revision has not become infructuous. After rejection of the objection under Section 47, C. P. C. , the trial court was bound to proceed with the execution proceedings and accordingly passed orders in the execution