JUDGMENT

M. N. Shukla, J. - This revision arises out of proceedings in execution of a compromise decree dated 22-1-1975 passed by this Court and affirmed by its order dated 3-4-1975.

2. The execution proceedings arose out of a suit which was filed for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts and winding up of the affairs of the firm known as "Agarwal Ice Factory, Ahmadabad" etc. Aggrieved by some of the orders passed in the suit the parties filed F.A.F.O.'s. in this Court and it was during the pendency of these appeals that the parties arrived at the compromise dated 22-1-1975. The following prayers were made by the parties in the compromise:

"A. That it be declared that the firm M/s. Agarwal Ice Factory, Ahmadabad stands dissolved.

B. That the suit for accounting shall stand decreed and the court below will appoint a commissioner to determine the amounts due to the respondents.

C. That on payment of the amount of Rs. 5,14,800/- and upon compliance of the terms of cl. (8) above the first appeal from order No. 31 of 1971 shall stand allowed and order passed by the court below against which order these appeals arise will stand set aside subject, however, to the terms of the compromise."

This Court passed on 22-1-1975 the following order on the compromise application -

"The parties have filed compromise application only signed by their counsel. But as all the parties are not present before the Court the compromise application will have to be sent to the Court below for verification and as under the terms of the compromise the amount is to be paid within a month, it is necessary that the compromise application be sent to the Court below through special messenger. It is, therefore, directed that the compromise application be sent through messenger to the III Addl. Civil Judge forthwith who will send the compromise application after verification through a special messenger as early as possible. The matter shall be listed for orders after the receipt of the compromise duly verified."

This Court further ordered on 3-4-1975:

"The parties have amicably settled their dispute and filed compromise application which was sent to the Court below for verification. It has been received back from there after due verification. All the appeals are disposed of in terms of the compromise application and the compromise application shall form part of the decree. The case will now go back for actual accounting and it has been agreed between the parties that the accounting shall be done upto the date of the registration of the sale-deed. The draft of the sale-deed has already been signed by the counsel for both the parties and has been filed in this Court today. It has been agreed between the parties that bank draft in the name of Ram Narain Agarwal plaintiff for Rupees 5,14,800/- payable on a Bank at Agra will be handed over to Ram Narain plaintiff at the time of the registration of the sale-deed."

3. The main objection of the defendant judgment debtor is that no executable decree was passed by the High Court and the decree relied upon by the plaintiff is a purely declaratory decree and cannot be executed as such. The plaintiffs want to execute the decree for Rs. 5,14,800/- without first paying the requisite Court fee therein. Since no decree capable of being executed was ever passed against the defendant, the execution application was misconceived. It was argued on behalf of the defendant-judgment-debtor that the alleged decree was based on a compromise arrived at between the parties under which the defendant No. 1 had agreed to purchase the right, title and interest of the plaintiff and other legal representatives of the deceased partner for Rs. 5,14,800/-. Under the decree there was no mandate or direction of the Court to make payment; it simply verified the agreement between the parties. Therefore, if the plaintiffs wanted any relief, they should have filed a suit for specific performance. On the other hand, the argument of the plaintiff was th