JUDGMENT

Misra, J - This is a defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit instituted by Madari Singh for specific performance of a contract of sale against Sada Sheo and Sidh Gopal.

2. A compromise decree was passed by the learned Munsif, Unao, North, on 3-1-1940 The relevant terms of the compromise were as follows: (1) that the plaintiff would deposit in Court Rs. 875 within a period of two months from the date of the compromise, namely, 3-1-1940, and defendant 1, Sada Sheo, would be entitled to take Rs. 850 for himself and Rs. 25 for meeting the expenses of execution and registration of the sale-deed; (2) that on the money, being deposited, the defendant would at first withdraw Rs. 25 and would execute in the plaintiff's favour a registered sale deed in respect of the property in suit within a week, and after he has filed it in Court, he would be entitled to withdraw the remaining amount of Rs. 850; (3) that in case the sum of Rs. 875 is not deposited by the plaintiff within the period specified above, the plaintiff's suit would be deemed to have been dismissed with costs.

3. According to the above compromise, it was essential that the money should be deposited in Court by 3-3-1940. That day was a Sunday, and accordingly Madari Singh applied to the Court a day before for permission to deposit Rs. 191-10-8. He had at that time a sum of Rs. 683-5-4 standing to his credit in another case and prayed that the aforesaid amount be transferred to the credit of the defendants in the present suit thus making a total of Rs. 875. The application was not accompanied by a tender, and the office drew the attention of the learned Munsif to this defect. On 4-3-1910, the learned Munsif ordered that the money may be taken in deposit on decree-holder's responsibility. Apparently, nothing was done on that day by Madari Singh. He presented a tender on 5-3-1940, for Rs. 191-10-8 and deposited the money on that day. Notice was issued to Madari Singh (Sada Sheo?) to take the money. He, however, refused to accept it saying that by virtue of the compromise decree, the suit stood dismissed on 3-3-1940. During the pendency of the proceedings in the trial Court, Madari Singh died, and his sons Babu Singh, Putan Singh and Nanha Singh were substituted in his place. The learned Munsif accepted the defendants' plea and dismissed the plaintiff's application, Babu Singh, Putan Singh and Nanha Singh went up in appeal to the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Unao. The view taken by the lower appellate Court was that the applicant had done all he could on 2-3-1940, and that he was not responsible for the delay brought about by the act of the Court. It accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the trial Court and directed that the application be re-admitted to its original number and disposed of in accordance with law. Babu Singh, Putan Singh and Nanha Singh (Sada Sheo?) came in appeal. Subsequently, Babu Singh died, and since Putan Singh and Nanha Singh were Ms legal representatives, the name of Babu Singh was deleted from the memorandum of appeal.

4. The first contention urged on appellants' behalf is that no appeal lay to the lower Court, and its decree setting aside the decision of the learned Munsif was without jurisdiction. It was said that the application of 2-3-1940 was under Section 151, Civil P.C., and the order therein did not amount to a decree within the meaning of Section 47, Civil P.C., since the question relating to the validity or otherwise of the deposit of Rs. 875 did not constitute a question regarding the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the compromise decree. In my opinion, this contention must be overruled. The decision that the payment by Madari Singh on 5-3-1940, did not comply with the terms of the decree operated as a dismissal of the suit for specific performance in terms of the compromise which provided that in default of deposit within the specified time, the suit shall stand dismissed. The order finally adjudi