Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. In R. V. S. Mani v. Balkrishna, Civil Revn. No. 495 of 1953, D/- 15-10-1953: 1954 Nag LJ (NC) No. 60, Choudhuri J. held that where time for payment was fixed by the compromise decree, the Court had no power to grant instalments under Order 20 Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code or to extend time for payment. The learned Judge relied on the case of Bhagirath v. Madhorao, ILR (1948) Nag 174: (AIR 1948 Nag 388) decided by Padhye J., which was also a case of a compromise decree, wherein the learned Judge held that in a case of a compromise decree the executing Court could not go behind the decree and if in case of default a larger sum was made payable, the Court may have to consider whether it would amount to a penalty, or a mere concession given to a judgment-debtor Padhye J. opined that the Court could not go behind a compromise decree, except when it found that there was a term which was against the law and which offended against public policy. However, on the facts of the case, the learned Judge held that the term about a larger sum being made payable in the event of a default was not a penalty, but a mere concession.