• Execution petition

The Plaintiff have filed a suit for (O.S.No.381/1969) Specific performance of the above agreement before the Vth Additional Judge,City Civil Court, Hyderabad parties have entered into a compromise (1st compromise) and wherein, the Respondents herein have offered to give 20 acres and 39 guntas to the Appellant/plaintiff.when the Respondents have failed to honour their commitment as per the above 1 st compromise decree, the DHR/Plaintiff filed the present E.P.No. 58/1984 before the executing court for execution.In this E.P. also, again both the parties have entered into another compromise and as per the 2 nd compromise, the DHR/Plaintiff was allotted 12 acres, after foregoing 8.39 acr. as they have declared excess land given to government
(2nd Compromise decree) DHR/Plaintiff was allotted 12 acres, and physical possession has been given JDR.

30-06-92.(MRO file No.C/7/1992) After compromise decree, DHR/Plaintiff, instead of approaching the executing court, for registration of the sale deed, Basing on the said compromise decree,the MROafter collecting the Stamp duty and registration fee, with the consultation of the concerned Subregistrar,has issued a certificate
After issuing the above certificate, the P/Defenders have preferred the present appeal before the concerned Revenue Divisional Authority The RDO opinioned that since it is a decree passed by a civil court and that the MRO has rightly passed the said order and hence there is no need to middle with the orders of the lower court and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
As against the orders of RDO, the Revision P/Defendants have preferred the present Revision. After due enquiry ,the Joint Collector has dismissed the Revision and confirmed the orders passed by the below revisional authorities.
As against the said orders of joint Collector, Petitioners/defendants have filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. The Hon’ble High Court has confirmed the orders of below authorities and dismissed the Writ Petition
As against the said order, the Revision Petitioners preferred this Writ Appeal before the Division Bench. In this, the Division Bench has quashed all the orders passed below authorities and also set aside the orders of the High Court, Single Judge. DB said that compromise decree is not valid document for section 5-a of act.
SLP NO. 10907/2005. As against the said orders, the DHR/Plaintiff preferred this SLP and the SLP is Dismissed on 13/10/2015

MY QUESTION.
DOCKET ORDER DATED 21.02.1985 IN EPno 58/1984 is as under
"compromise checked. the same is in order. compromise recorded EP is CLOSED.
AS THEIR WAS NO FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES ON MERITS. SO THAT I WILL NOT HIT BY LIMITATION

1. How you could say that E.P No58/1984 was closed by the court for "statistical purpose."
2. How this present (EA No 745/2015) petition is maintainable for reopening of EP NO. 58/1984 , as there was no EP filed, after recording compromise in the above Ep On 21.02.1985.