ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. An award by the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaora was made in favour of the non-applicant on account of death of 22 years aged son Devi. In all, execution petition was submitted for recovery of Rs. 1,17,900/-. Compromise petition was submitted merely for meager sum of Rs. 50,000/-, which was not accepted by the Executing Court on 21.2.02. While recording the statement of the decree-holder, learned Executing Court found that the compromise was being entered into on account of pressurization from the villagers. Accordingly, the compromise petition was rejected and the judgment debtor was directed to pay balance money. Thereafter, on. 21.2.03 counsel for the decree-holder got the execution petition dismissed as not pressed. Non-applicant after coming to know; filed fresh exception petition after changing the lawyer. Judgment-debtor submitted an application for dismissal of the execution petition on the ground of ealier compromise as well as earlier dismissal of the execution petition as not pressed. Learned Executing Court vide impugned order dated 18.12.06 rejected the application and issued warrant of attachment. Aggrieved by the same, present civil revision is preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the revisions placing reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Official Receiver, Malabar v. Valayudhan Pillai and another (AIR 1963 Kerala 52) contended that the executing Court was under an obligation to record compromise because it was submitted by the decree-holder and judgment-debtor. . 4. Suffice it to say that the Executing Court declined to accept compromise petition vide order dated 12.2.03, which has not been challenged in the present civil revision. 5. As regards, earlier dismissal of execution petition as not pressed vide order 21.2.03, it may be seen that the dismissal was not on account of total satisfaction of the award. It seems that the same was got dismissed by the counsel for the decree-holder when compromise petition was not accepted by the executing Court. The order dated 21.2.03 was not passed in presence of the decree-holder and the execution petition does not seem to have been withdrawn with her consent. 6. The being so, there is no banfor fresh execution petition. The civil revision is hereby dismissed summarily.