SM 1 3.caa.366.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 366 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1149 OF 2010 Dr. Suresh Dattatraya Shende and another ...Applicants. Versus M/s. Madhuri Constructions ....Respondent. ____________ Mr. Sanjay Kshirsagar for the Applicants. Mr. Nitin Muley for the Respondents. CORAM: R. M. BORDE, J. DATED : OCTOBER 11, 2011. P.C.: On perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court on 18th April, 2007, it appears that the Court has traveled beyond the compromise decree. The terms of the decree cannot be substituted by any other external mode. The executing court is supposed to execute a decree in terms of the compromise decree. In the instant matter, parties tendered joint purshis and decree is passed in terms of joint purshis. The judgment debtor now wants to enforce the terms of the agreement which were not made apart to the compromise decree. If at all, the plaintiff wants enforcement of terms of the agreement, a remedy available is not by way of taking execution of compromise decree. 2. Sofar as the order under challenge is concerned, it appears to be beyond the scope and perview of executing Court. I am of the view that the learned Judge of the executing court has overstepped and passed an order which is not contemplated while dealing with execution of compromise decree. The order, therefore, needs to be stayed. Hence, there shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a). (R. M. BORDE, J.)