JUDGMENT 1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order made in E.A.No.2398 of 2012 in E.P.No.23 of 2012 by the learned IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai whereby the petition filed by the petitioner herein under section 151 of C.P.C. to dismiss the execution petition was rejected. 2. The petitioner herein is the first judgment debtor in the said execution petition. The respondent herein initiated reference under section 64 of the Chit Funds Act in A.R.C. No.743 of 2008 against the petitioner herein. Consequently, a decree came to be passed on 28.09.2010 for a total sum of Rs.2,40,185/-. For realising the said decretal amount, the respondent herein filed execution petition in E.P.No.23 of 2012. In the said proceedings, the petitioner herein filed the above application in E.A.No.2398 of 2012 under section 151 of C.P.C. seeking to dismiss the above said E.P. on the ground that there is a full and final settlement made by the petitioner and therefore, the E.P. has to be dismissed. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that during the pendency of the reference, there was a compromise entered into between the parties outside the Court and according to the compromise, the petitioner has to pay only Rs.1,55,000/-towards full and final settlement of the entire claim of the respondent. Consequently, he remitted a sum of Rs.35,000/- before the Registrar of Chits, which was duly recorded in the said reference. Thereafter, a further sum of Rs.5,000/- on 17.06.2010, Rs.5,000/-on 30.06.2010 and again Rs.5,000/-was paid to the respondent. These amounts were not recorded in the arbitration proceedings. It is further claimed by the petitioner that he has paid Rs.1,00,000/- in several installments commencing from 03.02.2011 to 10.03.2012. Therefore, the entire amount of Rs.1,55,000/-was paid as per the compromise and the last payment receipt dated 10.03.2012 issued by the respondent's collection agent also indicated as "Last due-Final settlement". Therefore, when the agreed amount of Rs.1,55,000/- was fully settled, the execution proceedings cannot be continued and therefore, it has to be dismissed as not maintainable. 4. The respondent herein contested the said application and stated that the E.P. was filed against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,40,185/- along with interest. There was no compromise entered into with the petitioner by the respondent. 4. The respondent herein contested the said application and stated that the E.P. was filed against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,40,185/- along with interest. There was no compromise entered into with the petitioner by the respondent. Whatever the amount paid by the petitioner has been deducted and the same was also shown in column No.6 in the execution petition and except the amount shown in column No.6, the petitioner had paid Rs.20,000/- only after filing the E.P. and after that, he has not paid any single payment. It is also denied by the respondent that the petitioner had paid Rs.55,000/- on various dates. 5. Considering both the pleadings, the court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner by specifically holding that the claim of the petitioner that he has paid Rs.1,00,000/- in pursuant to the total settlement of Rs.1,55,000/- is wrong and the petitioner had failed to prove the same by any documentary proof. It is also further observed by the court below that the document marked under Ex.P12 indicating "last due final settlement" has to be proved by the judgment debtor by full-fledged enquiry in the main petition by examining the concerned person. It is also found by the court below that still very huge amount is due on the part of the petitioner towards the E.P. amount. Consequently, the application was dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to the respondent herein. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the orders passed by the court below along with the other materials placed in the typed set of papers. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner herein had suffered a decree in A.R.C.No.743 of 2008 for a total sum of Rs.2,40,185/- and the respondent herein, for realisation of the said decretal amount, filed E.P. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was out of court settlement between the parties thereby it was agreed that a sum of Rs.1,55,000/-has to be paid as full and final settlement of the entire claim of the respondent and that the said amount was also paid. First of all, this out of court settlement is denied by the respondent by filing a counter affidavit stating that there is no compromise entered into. First of all, this out of court settlement is denied by the respondent by filing a counter affidavit stating that there is no compromise entered into. It is also the case of the petitioner that in pursuant of such out of court settlement, some payments were made and according to the petitioner, it comes to a total sum of Rs.1,55,000/-. When the respondent has disputed the out of court settlement and also disputing the amount of Rs.1,55,000/-as full and final settlement between the parties, then all these contentions have to be gone into only by conducting a full-fledged enquiry in the execution proceedings and therefore the E.P. cannot be dismissed summarily based on the mere contention of the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strongly relied on Ex.P12 receipt issued by the collection agent of the respondent by contending that the endorsement made in the said receipt as "last due final settlement" would prove that there is no due from the petitioner. Here again, the said receipt said to have been issued by the respondent has to be proved by the petitioner by examining the concerned person who issued the receipt. 9. No doubt, the petitioner has marked Exs.P1 to P12, all are receipts said to be issued by the respondent. When all these receipts are not indicating that the total claim made in the execution proceedings have been settled in full, then the claim made by the petitioner with regard to the alleged out of court settlement and consequent payment made by him have to be gone into only by conducting a full-fledged trial and therefore, the same cannot be decided in the application filed by the petitioner. The court below has rightly rejected the application and I find no irregularity or infirmity in the order passed. Accordingly, I find no merits in the civil revision petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.