Compromise in execution proceedings can be enforced when linked to postponement of decree execution and recorded by the court.

A compromise recorded in execution proceedings, under which the judgment-debtor agreed to pay enhanced interest in return for postponement of execution, was enforceable. The executing court had jurisdiction to decide disputes arising between the parties under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to grant relief on questions relating to execution. The arrangement was treated as part of a fair bargain incidental to execution, not as an impermissible variation of the decree. The provisions of Order 23 and Order 20 did not bar enforcement, and the limitation objection did not defeat the recorded compromise.

---

---

Issues: Whether a compromise entered into in execution proceedings, under which the judgment-debtor undertook to pay interest at a rate higher than the decretal rate in consideration of postponement of execution, was enforceable in execution of the decree.

Analysis: A compromise relating to rights and obligations under a decree is permissible in law. Where such compromise concerns the execution of the decree and is duly recorded, the executing court has jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure to decide questions arising between the parties relating to execution and to grant appropriate relief. The agreement to pay enhanced interest as part of a fair bargain postponing execution was treated as incidental to execution and not as an impermissible alteration of the decree. The provisions of Order 23 and Order 20 did not exclude the power of the executing court to record and enforce such a compromise, and the limitation provision relied upon did not defeat the recorded arrangement.

Conclusion: The compromise was enforceable in execution proceedings and the undertaking to pay enhanced interest could be realised in execution.

---