IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.946 of 2008 SHARWAN KUMAR Versus MOSTT. SHANTI KUWAR ----------- 2 3/7/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner seems to be aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.2008, whereby and whereunder, the executing court has directed for delivery of possession. Counsel for the petitioner submits that true it is, that there was compromise on the basis of which the eviction suit, Title Suit No. 23 of 2007 was disposed of, but then delivery of possession could not be effected on the basis of such compromise decree and for this purpose he has relied upon a decision in the case of ‘Viveka Nand Bhawan Vs. Satendra Prasad’ reported in A.I.R. 1996 S.C.1985. In the opinion of this Court such submission of the counsel for the petitioner is absolutely misconceived, in as much as, the Apex Court in that particular case having noted the facts of the case and the terms of compromise decree had found that there was a clear provision in the compromise petition itself that the defendants were tobe evicted after expiry of period of ten years and that too through an appropriate action in court of law, this Court fails to understand as to how the facts and consequential ratio of the aforementioned judgment will be applicable in the present case where there was no such condition imposed in the decree. 2 Be that as it may, once the petitioner had entered into compromise on 27.4.2007 that not only he will pay arrears of rent but would also give vacant possession of the shop in question in Title Suit No. 23 of 2007, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to make any prayer and oppose delivery of possession. The grievance of the petitioner that certain amount was advanced and that has not been refunded by the landlord-opposite party also is misconceived and it has been fairly admitted by the counsel for the petitioner that a separate money suit for this purpose being Money Suit No. 13 of 2007 is still pending. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order. Accordingly, this civil revision application being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The court below is directed to ensure that the delivery of possession be effected within a period of one month of receipt/production of a copy of this order. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar