JUDGMENT T. Vaiphei, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.6.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Morigaon, Assam in Title Execution Case No. 4 of 2003 whereby he rejected the prayer of the rival parties for recording the compromise arrived at by them. 2. The petitioner herein along with others had instituted Title Suit No. 3 of 1999 against the respondent No. 1 for declaration of their rights and title to and confirmation of possession of the suit land covered by Dag No. 816 of Periodic Patta No. 29 under Gova Mouza, which they claim to possess by running a hotel under the name and style of "Punjabi Hotel" since 1967. Similarly, the respondent No. 1 had also filed Title Suit No. 7 of 1999 against the petitioner and others for recovery of possession 16 Lechas of land forming a part of the suit land in Title Suit No. 3 of 1999, which was alleged to have been occupied by the petitioner. Title Suit No. 7 of 1999 was apparently decreed in favour of the respondent No. 1, which is a School vide the Judgment. 3. It may be noted that the respondent No. 3 was the Headmaster of the respondent-School at the time of the pendency of Title Suit No. 9 of 1999 and he retired on 31.12.2001 and was succeeded by the respondent No. 2 by allowing her to continue as Headmistress vide the order dated 31.12.2001 of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Morigaon. During the pendency of the Title Execution Case No. 4 of 2003, the Managing Committee of the respondent-School changed hand and the new Managing Committee adopted on unanimous resolution in its meeting held on 7.2.2004 for amicable settlement of the case with the petitioner. To that effect, a compromise deed was said to execute by and between the petitioner and the respondent-School. The minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee dated 7.2.2004 is at Annexure 2 to this petition. The terms and conditions of the compromise are set out in the affidavit sworn by both the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 on behalf of the respondent-School and the same is at Annexure 3 to this petition. The minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee dated 7.2.2004 is at Annexure 2 to this petition. The terms and conditions of the compromise are set out in the affidavit sworn by both the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 on behalf of the respondent-School and the same is at Annexure 3 to this petition. It would appear that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 jointly filed a petition being Petition No. 493 dated 7.6.2004 before the Execution Court, i.e., the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Morigaon for passing an order of adjustment of the decree in terms of the aforesaid compromise. It is seen that the said affidavit was also said to be attached to the said compromise petition. 4. It is stated by the petitioner that both the respondent No. 2 and himself had earlier filed an application on 4.6.2004, which was registered as petition No. 477 for staying the execution of the decree. This was done when they came to learn that the respondent No. 3, the former Headmaster of the respondent-School had filed an application being petition No. 489 before the said Execution Court for providing police help to the Civil Nazir for taking over possession of the suit land in Title Suit No. 7 of 1999. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 had already retired as Headmaster of the respondent-School on 31.12.2001 and he had no locus standi to file the said petition. 5. The learned Civil Judge took up the three petitions for disposal and by the impugned order allowed the petition filed by the respondent No. 3 by directing the police to give assistance as called for and at the same time rejected both the petitions filed by the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. Aggrieved by this, this revision petition has been filed. In rejecting the petition for compromise filed by the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, the learned Civil Judge look the view that the affidavit jointly sworn by the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, did not disclose the terms and conditions upon which the decree is to be adjusted on compromise; that the compromise petition was filed at a very belated stage and that the provision under order 21, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.(under which the compromise petition was purportedly filed) did not provide for a compromise in execution case. 6. 6. On careful perusal of the impugned order, I am constrained to observe that the entire approach of the learned Civil Judge appears to be erroneous and cannot be sustained in law. In the first place, the learned Civil Judge has completely overlooked the fact that the respondent No. 3 at whose instance the petition for police assistance was filed had already retired and a new Managing Committee had already taken over the School. These vital facts have been highlighted by the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 in their joint petition dated 4.6.2004 (petition No. 477). In view of this development, the respondent No. 3 could not in law, represented the respondent No. 1. That being the position, the respondent No. 3 had no locus standi to file such a petition on behalf of the respondent-School. If the respondent No. 3 could not in law represent the respondent No. 1, it is hot possible to understand as to in what capacity, he was filing such an application. He could not possibly have filed such an application in his individual capacity since he does not have any personal interest in the suit land. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge has improperly exercised his jurisdiction in entertaining petition No. 477 filed by the respondent No. 3. 7. I have gone through a copy of the affidavit (Annexure 3) jointly sworn by the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 and examination of this affidavit unmistakably reveals the existence of the terms and conditions of the compromise. Paragraph No. (1)(a) to (f) of the affidavit describe in detail the rights and obligations of the parties after compromise. On critical examination of the said terms and conditions, I do not find therein an unlawful agreement. The learned Civil Judge has clearly failed to apply his mind. I have duly noted the affidavit-in-opposition dated 10.8.2004 respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in which they fully supported the case of the petitioner. The learned Civil Judge has also gone astray in holding that the compromise petition could not be acted upon since it was filed very belatedly. True, there is no specific provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for recording of compromise at the stage of execution. But there is also nothing in code which prevents a court from enforcing such a compromise. True, there is no specific provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for recording of compromise at the stage of execution. But there is also nothing in code which prevents a court from enforcing such a compromise. Order 23, Rule 4, of the Code merely lays down that Rule 3, is not to apply to execution proceedings. In suitable cases, the court can always invoke the provision of Section 151 of the Code for recording compromise of the nature arrived at by the parties herein unless the terms and condition by unlawful agreement. It is a settled law that if a source of power is traceable, exercise of such power cannot be declined merely because it was invoked/claimed under a different provision of law. Under the circumstance, the manner in which the learned Civil Judge exercised his jurisdiction is improper warranting the interference of this Court. 8. For what has been stated, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is, accordingly, set aside. The revision petition is allowed with cost. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Morigaon is hereby directed to record the compromise and pass a decree accordingly within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this judgment. Petition allowed.