' QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.--- This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12-10- 2011, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-V, Abbottabad, whereby the application moved by the appellant against the maintainability of the execution petition of the respondent was turned down.
2. The brief and essential facts leading to the present appeal are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant/defendant under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. In the Court of learned Additional District Judge-V, Abbottabad, for the recovery of Rs,11,50,000/- along with profit on the basis of Pro note/Iqrarnama dated 13-4-2009. In response, the appellant/respondent appeared in the Court and filed application under Order XXXVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. For leave to appear and defend the suit. The said application was allowed on 14-5-2010 and the a appellant submitted his written statement wherein he denied the claim of the respondent. After submission of written statement, the learned trial Court framed issues and also recorded statements of P.Ws. As well as D. Ws. Thereafter the dispute was settled between- the parties privately through a compromise and the appellant paid an amount of Rs,82,500/- to the respondent. Joint statement of the parties was recorded and the learned trial Court vide order dated 25-1-2011 disposed of the suit of the respondent. The respondent then filed an application for execution of the decree in the court of learned Additional District Judge-V, Abbottabad. The appellant appeared in the said court and submitted an application challenging the maintainability of the execution petition, which was turned down by the said learned court vide judgment and order dated 2-10-2011. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that after the parties had settled the matte-r privately, whereby the appellant had paid an amount of Rs,82,500 to the respondent and the suit was disposed of accordingly, then there was no occasion for the learned executing court to take cognizance of the matter. Further argued that the suit was disposed off in terms of private compromise between the parties and no decree was passed against the appellant; that in the absence of a decree in favour of the respondent against the appellant, no execution petition could be filed and no execution proceedings could be initiated against the appellant; that the appellant did not deposit any amount by way of decretal amount during the execution proceedings and an amount of Rs,82,500/- was paid by the appellant to the respondent by way of private settlement; that the disposal of the suit does not fall within the definition of a decree under subsection (2) of section 2, C.P.C.; that the suit was withdrawn after a private settlement between the parties and resultantly no execution proceedings could be initiated on the basis of the same and thus the execution proceedings being in violation of law are liable to be filed without any further proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent strongly defended the impugned order and argued that as per the terms of the compromise the appellant was liable to pay a total amount of Rs,3,82,500/- by way of full and final settlement of the dispute between the parties and it was in terms of the said compromise 'that an amount of Rs,82,500/- was paid by the appellant to the respondent through the court that it was on the failure of the appellant to fulfil his monetary obligations in terms of the compromise as well as order dated 25-1-2011 of the learned Additional District Judge-V, Abbottabad that the respondent was constrained to initiate execution proceedings against the appellant which were very much in accordance with law and procedure and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety which warrants to be set aside, as prayed for by the appellant.
5.. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Undoubtedly, the respondent had filed a recovery suit under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. Before the learned Additional District Judge-V, Abbottabad, for the recovery of Rs,11,50,000/- on the basis of pro note/Iqrarnama dated 13-4-2009 and after leave was granted to the appellant/defendant, issues were framed and statements of the P. Ws. And D.Ws, were recorded. It was thereafter, that the parties settled the matter privately through a. Compromise and in this respect a joint statement of the parties was recorded on 25-1-2011 and on the same date, the learned Additional District Judge-V Abbottabad passed the following order:--- "Counsel along with parties present. This is a suit for recovery of Rs,11,50,000/- filed against the respondent vide pro note dated 13-4-2009.
' Arguments heard and record perused.
' During course of proceedings, counsel for the parties produced compromise deed (Exh.P.A.) and requested for withdrawal of the basis of compromise. To this effect, joint statement of the parties was recorded and placed on file. The terms of compromise contained in Exh.P.A.
' In the circumstances, the suit in hand is disposed of in terms of the compromise. File be consigned to the record room after its completion."
7. Apparently, it was on the failure of the appellant to live up to the terms of compromise between the parties that the respondent filed an execution petition before the learned Additional District Judge-V Abbottabad on 8-6-2011, regarding which the appellant raised the issue of maintainability of filing an application in this regard.
8. It needs no reiteration that after the monetary controversy was resolved by the parties themselves on the basis of compromise, the learned trial Court disposed of the suit in terms of compromise albeit without decreeing the suit as such in favour of the respondent against the appellant but instead consigned the file to the record room after its completion. This in a situation where no decree sheet was drawn and the suit was merely disposed of, then the said disposal order does not fall within the definition of a decree as defined under subsection (2) of section 2, C.P.C. It is by now a settled law that it is a decree and certainly not a judgment which is executable.
9. For the reasons discussed above, this appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the learned executing court dated 12-10-2011 is set aside and consequently, the execution petition is filed without any further proceedings.