The Calcutta Weekly Notes. Monday March 26 1934

No payment was made and in 1927 the Plaintiff filed a suit on the Original Side of the High Court against the Defendant on precisely the same cause of action as that of the present suit and asked for virtually the same relief. [...] In 1928 when the High Court suit was pending she applied to the Alipare Court for execution of the decree passed in the suit of 1920 and then she was put to an election by that Court of either proceeding with the High Court suit or proceeding with the execution case. [...] The Plaintiff's affidavit stated that she had not proceeded with the suit in as much she had been advised that the adjudication in the execution proceedings operated as res judicata and she submitted that the hearing of the suit should be deferred till the diposal of the appeal in the execution case. [...] On the reading of the affidavits the suit was dismissed by Lort-Williams J. On the 25th August T930 the appeal prferred by the Defendant in the execution case was allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court.. [...] The lower Courts rejected the application for execution holding that the conditions of the comnromise decree had substantially been fulfilled : Held (TERRELL C. J. and SAUNDERS J.)— That a comnromise decree cannot extend futher than the terms of the compromise itself and that if the compromise involves a clause of penalty or forfeiture the Court notwitstanding the decree in the terms of