IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that a compromise should be followed by a formal decree as per Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC.

ORDER

1. This revision application under Article 227 of the Constitution, has been filed seeking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to quash and set aside order dated 18.02.2020, passed by the Court of the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Ri Bhoi District in Execution Case No. 1 of 2019. The case of the petitioner is that Title Suit No. 4 of 2016 was instituted by the petitioners as plaintiffs before the Court of the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Ri Bhoi District, Nongpoh, which in the course of proceedings resulted in a compromise between the parties. Thereafter, a compromise petition dated 07.06.2016, was filed before the Court below and the entire suit was disposed of by order dated 04.07.2016.

2. Due to the non-compliance of the terms of compromise by the respondents, the petitioners approached the Learned Lower Court for execution of the compromise deed dated 04.07.2016, vide Execution Case No. 1 of 2019. The Learned Court below vide orders dated 02.07.2019 and 13.08.2019, was pleased to appoint a Bailiff to act as a mediator to conduct local inspection to make proper measurements of the respective lands of the parties and to file report before the Court, which was filed on 19.08.2019. It appears that the respondents through their counsel had filed objection in the said Execution Case and the Learned Court below entertained their objection and disposed of the suit vide the impugned order dated 18.02.2020, by holding that there was no decree drawn up in terms of the compromise agreement dated 04.07.2016, leaving the parties to solve their own disputes and concluding by allowing the objection application of the respondents against the application for execution, which had been made by the petitioners under Order 21 Rule 15 of the CPC. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. Before coming to the merits of this revision, it is noted that, inspite of service of notice since 30.10.2020, the respondents No. 1 and 2, have chosen not to appear. This Court thereafter, on several dates that is on 02.12.2020, 16.12.2020 and 17.02.2021 adjourned the matter giving opportunity to the respondents to make appearance, but however, as no appearance was forthcoming on their behalf, by order dated 18.03.2021, it was ordered that the matter proceed ex-parte against the respondents No. 1 and 2, and the records were requisitioned from the Lower Court.

4. Heard Mr. S.R. Lyngdoh, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that after the compromise had been arrived at, settling the disputes raised in the Title Suit, the same was reduced to writing, and was jointly presented before the Lower Court on 04.07.2016, praying for judgment decree and order to be passed by the Court based on the mutual settlement. He submits that the Learned Court below heard and examined the parties, and disposed of the suit by allowing and accepting the settlement arrived at vide order dated 04.07.2016, but no formal decree was drawn up. Learned counsel submits that as the respondents were not fulfilling their part of the agreement, the petitioners then filed an application under Order 21 Rule 15 of the CPC for execution of the terms of the compromise agreement on 08.03.2019. The Learned Lower Court thereafter, he submits, by order dated 02.07.2019, appointed one Smti. M. Gatphoh, LDA to carry out local inspection and also to act as a mediator between the parties for fulfillment of the compromise deed and thereafter on the presentation and report by subsequent order, deputed one D. Barka, Bench Assistant to proceed with the execution on 16.08.2019. He further submitted that, the said Bench Assistant filed a report on 19.08.2019, indicating therein the factual position and also the fact that, the respondent No. 2 was not cooperating.

5. Learned counsel submits that, in the meanwhile, to this application, the respondents filed 2(two) objections on 24.09.2019 and 28.11.2019 on the same premise, which the learned Lower Court took up for