JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree of learned Addl. Dist. Judge, Bali dated 9.1.91. 2. In brief the facts of this case are that suit No. 44/85 for ejectment was filed against Sheshmal in the year 1985, and exparte order was passed. In execution a warrant of possession has been issued by the learned trial court on 27.9.89. The petitioner is the legal representative of judgment debtor during the pendency of the execution petition has filed an application under Order 21 Rule 26 real with 151 Civil Procedure Code. It was alleged by the petitioner that at the time of passing the decree, there was an oral compromise between the parties and while maintaining the earlier rent on the basis of oral compromise it was agreed that out of disputed premises one room over the shop was to be handed over by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder. It was prayed that as a new tenancy was created between the parties, the possession cannot be given to the decree-holder in execution petition and execution may be stayed till the application is decided. The learned trial court rejected the application. Hence, this revision. 3. Mr. K.C. Samdariya, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to non-payment of Rs. 300/- as per order, the court has erred in rejecting the application. He has also submitted that the decree-holder is not liable to get the suit premises vacated in this execution proceedings, particularly when there was a new contract and rent receipt given by the counsel of decree- holder is on record. He has further submitted that without holding an enquiry, learned court below has erred in rejecting his application. He has placed reliance on Shyam Lal v. Murlidhar (All.) AIR 1971 Supreme Court 609 , Indra v. Narayan Chand C.J. A.I.R. (Raj.) 283 and Kashiram v. Hansraj 1982 R.L.W. 648. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the case law as well as the impugned order. 5. In this case an exparte-decree was passed on 5.8.87, which was set aside on 27.9.89 on cost of Rs. 300. This amount was to be deposited by the judgment- debtor on or before 13.3.89, failing which it was ordered that the application for setting aside will stand rejected. 5. In this case an exparte-decree was passed on 5.8.87, which was set aside on 27.9.89 on cost of Rs. 300. This amount was to be deposited by the judgment- debtor on or before 13.3.89, failing which it was ordered that the application for setting aside will stand rejected. Admittedly, the judgment debtor has not deposited the cost as per condition of setting aside exparte decree. Thus, the said decree has become absolute. In view of the facts, of this case, the case law cited by the learned Counselor the petitioner is altogether on different point and I need not deal with them in detail it is pertinent to note that Madanlal had filed an affidavit in support of the application under Order 21 Rule 26 and it was alleged that there was an oral compromise arrived at in the year 1987. But this fact of compromise was never brought before the court, while the order dated 27.9.89 was passed. As per allegation, the rent was kept the same and it was also agreed that the room over the shop was to be handed- over to the plaintiff-decree-holder but it was not handed over. Furthermore nothing reveals from the alleged receipt dated 4.9.91 given by the counsel for decree-holder of 12 months from September, 1989 to September, 1990 of rent which was due. It is true one can make on oral compromise but it should be proved but in the instant case, the learned lower court has not believed the theory of oral agreement. As discussed above these circumstances go to show that the theory of oral compromise is innocuous and the same is nothing but a device to linger on the execution. The learned executing court has considered all the aspects of the case and rejected the application. The granting of stay of execution is a discretion of the court, and I do not consider it proper that the question of oral compromise pleaded is required to be investigated. Therefore, the learned Magistrate in the exercise of jurisdiction has not acted illegally or with material irregularity and the impugned order calls for no interference. 6. In the result, this revision is dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******