JUDGMENT

Agarwala, J. - This is a Defendant's application in revision arising out of a suit for removal of an encroachment. The parties are two idols which are installed in two adjacent temples,. The Plaintiff's temple is in the south-west corner of the Defendant's temple. The southern and western walls of the Defendant's temple were reconstructed or repaired and the Plaintiff-opposite party's case was that in the process of reconstruction or repair encroachment of I foot in the width and 14 feet in length had been made into the land belonging to the Plaintiffs temple. This would be at the south west-corner of the Defendant's temple. The defence was that there has been no encroachment.

2. The decision depended mostly upon measurement. The parties made a statement in court. The statement was that if the Defendant's southern wall was 25 feet or less in length from the Government Takia the Plaintiff's suit will stand dismissed, but if the wall were longer the Plaintiff's suit will be decreed. This statement was made with reference to a map No. 27A. In the map the southern wall of the Defendant's temple was shown as 26 feet in length. In accordance with the statement of the parties an amin was deputed who found that the length of the Defendant's temple wall was more than 25 feet. On receipt of this report the Defendant presented an application to the court that a decree be not passed in terms of the earlier statement of the parties because it was vitiated by reason of a mutual mistake. The mistake alleged to have been made was that both the parties thought that in the map the southern wall of the Defendant's temple was shown as 25 feet only whereas in fact it was shown to be 26 feet.

3. The Plaintiff did not agree that there was any mistake. The trial court held that there was a mutual mistake and set aside the statement of the parties and the measurement made by the amin in pursuance of the statement, and ordered the case to proceed on the merits.

4. Against the order setting aside the amin's measurement and the statement of the parties the Plaintiff appealed to the lower appellate court. In the appeal the lower appellate Court was of opinion that there was no mutual mistake and that it was not open to the Defendant to go back upon his statement when it had been acted upon. The appeal was allowed and the order of the trial court was set aside and the suit was remanded to the lower court with the direction that it should be restored to its original number and disposed of according to the report of the amin made in pursuance of the agreement of the parties.

5. Against this order of the lower appellate court the Defendant has come up in revision to this Court and his contention is that no appeal lay to the court below as the statement of the parties did not amount to an adjustment of the case within the meaning of Rule 3 of Order 23, Code of Civil Procedure. In our opinion the position of law in matters like the present is that when parties make a statement which by itself does not dispose of the case it is' merely an agreement and not an adjustment Under Order 23, Rule 3. The agreement can be enforced because it has taken place in the presence of the court. It is enforced under the inherent jurisdiction of the court as held in Sahab Ram v. Ram Nawaz 1952 AWR (H.C.) 431. See the observations of Agarwala, J.--

The true basis of the power of the court to decide a case in accordance with the agreement between the parties is neither Section 20 of the Evidence Act, nor Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC nor the Arbitration Act but the agreement of the parties themselves. If the agreement is valid, the court has a power under its inherent jurisdiction to give effect to it.

6. This was observed in a case in which the agreement of the parties had not been acted upon. When in pursuance of the agreement of the parties everything has been done which was required to be done and the only thing that remains to be done is the order of the court disposing of the