:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2111 OF 2008 Shri Bhikachand Mundada ..Petitioner Vs. Shri Shyam Gyaniram Agarwal ..Respondent Mr. Rajesh More for petitioner. Mr. B.S. Bhogal with Mr.Pramod Patil and Mr.S.V. Sadavarte for respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : March 31, 2008. Date : March 31, 2008. Date : March 31, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. More the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident that the petitioner has resorted to every tactics possible to delay the execution of the compromise decree. 2. Civil Suit No. 199 of 2002 was decreed by the trial court in terms of the compromise signed between the parties on 19/8/2004 and it was agreed that the plaintiff would sale/transfer a shop located on the :2: lower ground floor and admeasuring about 180 sq.ft. (carpet area) or 225 sq.ft. (built up). In turn, the petitioner - defendant was to vacate the existing shop in his possession. He did not do so and in the meanwhile the Pune Municipal Corporation had granted commencement certificate no.1806 to the plaintiff on 15/9/2003. The plaintiff, therefore, filed execution application no.92 of 2006 before the Small Causes Court at Pune. An agreement was signed between the parties and placed before the executing court. As per the said agreement shop no.6 in building no.1-A on the lower ground floor admeasuring 180 sq.mtrs. (carpet) or 225 sq.ft. (built up) was to be allotted to the petitioner. However, the petitioner approached the Lower Appellate court and filed an appeal belatedly along with an application for condonation of delay, which was rejected by the Lower Appellate Court. The petitioner approached this court in Writ Petition No. 7480 of 2007 which was allowed on 3/12/2007 and delay was condoned subject to payment of costs quantified at Rs.20,000/-. Appeal came to be registered and by the impugned order the same has been dismissed as not maintainable. :3: 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the compromise was obtained by misrepresentation in as much as the petitioner was to be allotted a shop on the ground floor and, in fact, the shop which has been allotted is in the basement and as per him this amounted to breach of the compromise pursis and, therefore, he challenged the decree by filing the appeal. I have perused the compromise pursis and it clearly states that the plaintiff had agreed to allot a shop on the lower ground floor to the defendant i.e. Shop No.6 and the agreement subsequently executed between the parties also speaks about the same shop. There is absolutely no breach or misrepresentation of the compromise pursis on the part of the plaintiff and the terms of the compromise pursis were binding on both the parties. The suit has been decreed on the basis of the compromise pursis. The contention that the compromise pursis was signed under misrepresentation is only by way of an after thought and to delay the execution of the decree. The Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that the appeal was not :4: maintainable against a compromise decree. 4. Petition is rejected summarily and it has been noted that the plaintiff is ready and willing, even at this stage, to allot Shop No.6 in Building No.1-A as per the compromise decree. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)