Short Note : 1. The applicant and the non-applicant are the owners of the two adjoining houses and a suit was filed by the non-applicant-decree-holder Raghveer Prasad with regard to an intervening wall and some structures connected therewith. The suit resulted in a compromise decree between the parties according to which both the parties were to do and or abstain from doing certain things in future. The decree-holder felt that certain obligations which the judgment-debtor was to discharge under this compromise decree were not discharged by him. He, therefore sought assistance of the Court by way of an execution application and prayed that the judgment-debtor be directed to discharge these obligations. From the record it appears that the obligations related to certain construction work regarding the common wall and other matters related thereto. Considering the matter of the terms and conditions embodied in the compromise decree, the learned executing Court thought proper to appoint a Commissioner, who could examine the terms of the decree in the light of the prayer made by both the parties and get the required work done. Initially there was a dispute between the parties as to who was to be appointed as the Commissioner but this dispute was finally decided as per order passed by this Court in civil Revision No. 594 of 1977 dated 19-10-1977. Thereafter there were allegations and counter allegations before the executing Court that necessary work which the judgment-debtor was required to do in accordance with the decree was not being done. The Judgment-debtor contended that the work which the decree-holder required, him to do was contingent upon certain work being taken by him in future and since he did not propose to undertake work the question of compliance with the compromise decreed did not arise. The learned executing Court by the impugned order rejected the application made by the applicant. Held : A mere perusal of the execution application will show that the decree-holder had prayed for a number of relief’s being granted to him, The judgment-debtor opposed the execution application on a number of grounds, By the impugned order the learned execution Court has in summary manner disposed of the objections raised by the parties but has not applied its mind as to what exactly was wanted by the decree-holder and what the judgment debtor was required to do or abstain from doing in accordance with the compromise decree. A summary disposal of the application in the manner in which it has been disposed of by the learned executing Court was not proper. 2. Considering the circumstance of the case, the terms of the compromise decree and the manner in which the execution application is being dealt with by the learned executing Court, it is ordered:- (1) that the Commissioner appointed by the executing Court should first be asked to inspect the property in dispute and then report as to whether in accordance with the terms and conditions of the compromise decree the decree-holder does or does not appear to be entitled to various relief’s claimed by him in the execution application. (2) That after the report of the Commissioner is received; the executing Court shall examine, the report in the light of the terms and conditions of the compromise decree and if it is found that the judgment-debtor is or is not required to do or abstain from doing any particular work, then necessary direction be given to him in that behalf. (3) In case after the said directions, if any, are given by the executing Court the defendant falls to comply with these directions then necessary orders be passed for the due compliance with the directions according to law. Revision allowed. Case remanded.