JUDGMENT A.N. Dikshita, J. - This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and order dated 13-12-1985 passed by VI Addl. District Judge, Varanasi in Civil Appeal No. 333 of 1984 confirming the judgment and decree dated 18-8-1984 passed by III Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi in Misc. Case No. 89 of 1982. Banjari Lal v. Batuk Prasad. 2. The contention of the appellant is that an application for compromising the suit was filed and in terms of that application the suit was disposed of and such a decree would be deemed to be a final decree. Instead at the instance of the plaintiff-respondent the trial court has proceeded to order for preparation of a final decree. Aggrieved against the order of the trial court dismissing the objection preferred by the defendant-appellant the appeal was preferred which too was dismissed giving rise to the second appeal. 3. Both the courts below have come to the conclusion that the decree prepared in the light of the application compromising the suit is a preliminary decree and a final decree has to be prepared. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the case. The court below has rightly rejected the objection as well as the application and the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal. Unless a final decree is prepared it cannot be executed nor the terms and conditions as incorporated in the compromise application can be implemented.