Consent decree instalments cannot be extended unilaterally; decree-holder consent is required and default terms remain binding.

A consent decree embodying compromise terms could not be varied unilaterally by extending instalment deadlines without the decree-holder's consent. Order 20 Rule 11(2) permits post-decree instalments only on the judgment-debtor's application and with the decree-holder's consent, while Sections 148 and 151 CPC cannot be used to override express compromise terms or defeat the agreed consequence of default. The recorded minutes were negotiated consent terms, so the decree was a consent decree under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, not a decree on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. The agreed default clause remained binding and entitled execution of the full decree.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the court could extend the time for payment of instalments under a compromise decree without the consent of the decree-holder; (ii) whether the decree was a decree on admission under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or a consent decree under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): whether the court could extend the time for payment of instalments under a compromise decree without the consent of the decree-holder.

Analysis: Order 20, Rule 11(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits post-decree instalments only on the application of the judgment-debtor and with the consent of the decree-holder. The agreed terms expressly provided that default in payment of instalments would entitle the decree-holder to execute the full decree. The provisions of Section 148 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could not be used to alter the terms of a compromise decree or to grant unilateral extension contrary to the agreed conditions.

Conclusion: The court had no power to extend the time for instalments without the decree-holder's consent, and the refusal to grant extension was correct.

Issue (ii): whether the decree was a decree on admission under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or a consent decree under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: A decree on admission rests on the court's determination of an admitted fact and does not depend on party consent, whereas a consent decree is founded on a written compromise or agreement between the parties lawfully settled and accepted by the court. The recorded minutes were the product of negotiation and compromise between the parties and governed the consequences of default, showing that the decree was passed in terms of consent terms rather than on a unilateral admission.

Conclusion: The decree was a consent decree under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and not a decree on admission under Order 12, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Final Conclusion: The compromise terms remained binding according to their tenor, default activated the agreed consequence of execution for the entire decretal amount, and the appellant was not entitled to unilateral modification of the decree terms.

Ratio Decidendi: A post-decree variation of instalment terms in a consent decree requires the decree-holder's consent, and a compromise decree cannot be altered unilaterally by invoking the court's general or equitable powers.

---