GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant defendant is challenging a final decree dated 6. 6. 2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), ranebennur in O. S. No. 142 of 1988. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT plaintiff filed a suit in O. S. No. 142 of 1988. A compromise petition was filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC on 6. 8. 1990 by the parties. According to the averments in the appeal memo, plaintiff had expired on 30. 11. 1994. It is further averred in the appeal memo that the plaintiff did not act upon the compromise petition. The appellant complains that without hearing the parties and without considering as to whether a final decree is passed in the changed circumstances or not, the learned Judge has chosen to pass the impugned order. This order is challenged. ( 3 ) NOTICE was issued. Respondents have entered appearance. Appellant while reiterating the facts and grounds, raises a plea that whenever a final decree is drawn in terms of the preliminary decree, a notice is necessary so that the judge is informed of subsequent developments, if any, for the purpose of proper adjudication. In the case on hand, plaintiff had died in the year 1994. Same has not been noticed. Legal representatives have not been brought on record. According to the counsel, a compromise preliminary decree was violated and in that view of the matter no finding on the final decree could have been passed. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents would say that there is no challenge to the preliminary decree and therefore the order need not be interfered with by this court in this appeal. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. ( 5 ) MATERIAL facts reveal that the case was advanced in terms of the memo. A compromise petition was filed and the learned Judge has decreed the suit in terms of a compromise petition dated ( 6 ) 8. 1990. Original records were summoned. It is seen from the original records that a decree was not drawn up for want of stamps. It appears that records have been sent to the Central Records. From the original file, it is seen that an affidavit has been filed on 1. 3. 2001. In the affidavit it is stated that the father of the deponent-plaintiff has died leaving behind there legal representatives. It appears that records have been sent to the Central Records. From the original file, it is seen that an affidavit has been filed on 1. 3. 2001. In the affidavit it is stated that the father of the deponent-plaintiff has died leaving behind there legal representatives. It is further stated that the father of the deponent did not pay necessary Court fee stamps during his life time, and, on coming to know of the same, they have produced Court fee stamps and sought for getting the records from the Central Record Room for the purpose of drawing up of a decree. From the original records, it is also seen that the learned Judge has noticed about the receipt of the R and PS on 31. 5. 2001 and passed an order for preparation of the final compromise decree. A decree is accordingly has been drawn on 6. 6. 2001. But it was done without notice to the other side. A copy of the affidavit filed on 1. 3. 2001 has not been provided to the defendant appellant. In those circumstances, he could not have his say in the matter. But the learned Judge, to my shock, has ordered drawing up of a decree notwithstanding the death of the plaintiff and notwithstanding the factum of legal representatives not having come on record. Compromise petition was filed in the year 1990. Decree is drawn after 11 years. During this interregnum, there may be some developments in the case on hand. In these circumstances, learned judge, particularly in the light of death of the plaintiff and in the light of enormous delay of more than 11 years, ought not to have mechanically ordered passing of a final decree. In the interest of justice, he ought to have directed the applicant to serve a copy of the affidavit to the contesting respondents and obtained his/their say in the matter and passed an order thereon. Such an exercise has not been done in the case on hand. ( 7 ) IN these circumstances, I am satisfied that the decree drawn requires to be set aside with a further direction to the learned Judge to issue a notice to both the parties and with a further direction to the applicant to provide a copy of the application/affidavit to the appellant. ( 7 ) IN these circumstances, I am satisfied that the decree drawn requires to be set aside with a further direction to the learned Judge to issue a notice to both the parties and with a further direction to the applicant to provide a copy of the application/affidavit to the appellant. After obtaining his say in the matter, the trial judge is directed to pass appropriate orders. ( 8 ) IT is also necessary for me to observe here that the order of the Court (decree) has to be implemented, respected and acted upon. It is not a mere paper and it has some sanctity in law. It creates a right in favour of the parties. Hence, Judges are to be careful in passing orders and not mechanically order like drawing up of a decree as in this case without noticing the petitioners death and even without noticing the averments of the petition. In this connection, it is necessary to refer to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in M. K. MANJAPPA BY L. Rs. vs KALYANIPUJARTHY AND others1. The bench has ruled as under:. . . . The drawing up of a decree was only a formal affair and even if there is some omission, that cannot affect the rights of the parties either way to file an appeal and for a mistake committed by the Court for not drawing up a decree on nonjudicial stamp papers, the party should not be visited with the consequences of his appeal not being competent. On the facts of this case, we must hold that the objection is not well founded and the same must be rejected. We, therefore, hold that the appeal lies and over-rule the preliminary objection. The Bench further holds thus: 6. On the facts we are satisfied that the method adopted by the Court below in drawing lots without concurrence of all the parties and allotting shares without going into the objections, was not proper. We, therefore, set aside the order and decree and send back the records to the lower Court with a direction that the lower Court may pass a final decree in accordance with law. We, therefore, set aside the order and decree and send back the records to the lower Court with a direction that the lower Court may pass a final decree in accordance with law. ( 9 ) THE Supreme Court recently in the case of HAMEED joharan (D) AND OTHERS vs ABDUL SALAM (D) BY L. R. s AND others has ruled that a period of limitation does not stand extend for a period of 12 years from 26. 3. 1984 (i. e. the date on which stamp papers were filed ). Supreme Court has also ruled that furnishing of stamp on paper is within the domain of decree holder and nothing prevented him from acting in terms therewith. A decree was capable of being enforced on the date on which it was pronounced in the court and limitation period ought to be counted therefrom. In the light of the latest pronouncement there is necessity on the part of the trial Court to see that the Civil Rules of Practice are strictly followed in the matter of calling stamp papers as otherwise limitation starts running from the date of the decree. ( 10 ) IT is necessary to notice Rule 101 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice. It provides for drawing up of a decree not later than 7 days after the pronouncement of the judgment. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 101 further provide for a notification for information of the pleaders concerned. It also provides for satisfaction of the judge with regard to the decree being in accordance with the judgment. In the case on hand, facts of the case demand hearing and satisfaction. Same has not been done. It is an additional factor requiring me to allow this appeal. ( 11 ) IN the result, appeal is allowed. Final decree is set aside with the above directions. Trial Judge is directed to complete the proceedings within six months from today. --- *** --- .