JUDGMENT 1. The Revision challenges the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Sivagangai, on a Memo filed before it in M.C.O.P. No.82 of 2010. 2. The Claimants in M.C.O.P. No.82 of 2010 raised a claim for compensation pursuant to the death of a family member in an accident. Such Claim Petition was allowed and the Petitioner/Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.7,57,000/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% to the Respondents/Claimants 1 to 5. Thereafter, compromise was entered into between the Respondents 1 to 5 herein and the Petitioner-Insurance Company, whereunder the Respondent agreed to accept a sum of Rs.5 lakhs with interest at the rate of 7.5% and to give up the remaining amount payable as per the award, in full and final settlement. The compromise have been given effect to, a Joint Memo was filed before the Tribunal informing the said position and requiring the recording of the compromise arrived at. Under an order dated 16.11.2011, the Court below has dismissed the said Memo as not maintainable informing that the same could not be entertained unless the Court was invoking the powers of execution under Order 21, C.P.C. Informing that an Appeal by the Insurance Corporation would be numbered only after 50% of the awarded sum had been deposited, it stated that an attempt was being made to pressurize it to accept ‘a lesser award’ by invoking its jurisdiction after passing of the award. It informed that the option available to the Claimant was to file E.P. and record settlement and that for the Insurance Company was to file an Appeal. 3. Heard Mr. Srinivasa Raghavan, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Insurance Company. 4. Considering the fact that relief was sought before the lower forum by both parties and there is no dispute between them on the settlement arrived at, no notice to the Respondents is necessary. 5. The order of the Tribunal reflects a most hyper technical approach, It is always open to the parties to a dispute to arrive at compromise towards its settlement and this is more so and all the more common in respect of money decrees. The requirement of Order 21, Rule 2, C.P.C., that a decree holder has to certify the payment of adjustment made, to the Court stands satisfied in the instant case. The requirement of Order 21, Rule 2, C.P.C., that a decree holder has to certify the payment of adjustment made, to the Court stands satisfied in the instant case. While so, it becomes the duty of the Court which has the power toe execute the decree to record the same. 6. As the Memo filed by both parties informs that a sum of Rs.5,63,481/- stands deposited before the Tribunal (Rs.5 lakhs towards principal and Rs.63,481/- towards interest and costs) and the same also reflects that the sums payable by the Tribunal to the minor Claimants have not been interfered with, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (MACT), Sivagangai, is directed to record the full satisfaction of the claim of the Claimants in M.C.O.P. No.82 of 2010. 7. Theorder of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (MACT), Sivagangai, is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.