Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O. XLVII, r. 1

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--------   -----O. XLVII, r. 1 --Review-Sought on ground of compromise between parties subse quent to decision of Court-Review application, held, outside scope of O. XLVII, r. 1.   (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------   ---O. XXI, r. 2-Scope-- Decree not yet dram up-Provisions of rule not attracted.   (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------   ----O. XXIII, r. 3- Compromise subsequent to judgment-Provisions of rule not applicable.   (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------   -----S. 151-Inherent powers of Court not exercisable after case has been disposed of -Court not competent to review judgment in exercise of such powers even if decree-sheet is still to be drawn up.   Gopala Iyengar and others v. Mummachi Reddiar and others A I R 1923 Mad. 392 ; Raja Debi Bakhsh Singh v. Habib Shah 40 1 A 151 ; Karishanaji Vinayak Belapurkar v. Motilal Magandas Gujarati A I R 1929 Bom. 337 and Valji Harji v. Ravishankar Chhaganlal and others A I R 1947 Sind 1 distinguished.   Sher Muhammad and others v. Khuda Bux and another P L D 1961 Lah. 579 ref.  JUDGMENT   This order will dispose of Application No. 354/C of 1963 fled by the plaintiff appellant, Mst. Bashir Begum, as well as two applications filed by the defendant-respondent, Abdur Rehman, viz. Civil Miscellaneous Nos. 393/C-63 and 394/C-63. In Application No. 354/C of 1963, the plaintiff has prayed that the defendant be directed to deposit his share of the non-judicial stamp paper amounting to Rs. 3,090 for drawing up a decree for the partitioning of the property in suit, namely, Rahman Building, situated on Temple Road, Lahore in accordance with the judgment of this Court dated the 18th April 1962. On a notice of this application being served on the defendant, the latter filed Application No. 393/C of 1963 praying that the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Bashir Ahmad on the 18th of April 1962, be reviewed for the reason that on the 19th of July 1962; the parties entered into an oral compromise, under which the defendant paid, in the first instance, mesne profit amounting to Rs. 27,907 to the plaintiff in the presence…