compromise memo should not be looked into. The defendants on coming to know that the compromise memo had not been given effect to, atleast should have invited the attention of the court in respect of the same, on the revival of the suit and prayed the court concerned, to pass suitable orders on the compromise memo by filing a necessary application. However, no such recourse has been made by the defendants. Resultantly, the position being, as according to the plaintiff, the compromise memo was not given effect to, as the defendants failed to keep their promise as assured and on the other hand, according to the defendants, all the directions of the plaintiff for entering into the compromise had been performed by the defendants and nothing remains to be further done, however, as regards the above contentions, there is no consensus ad item between the parties and that apart, when the parties concerned particularly the defendants, had not invited the attention of the court to pass suitable orders on the basis of the compromise memo before taking up the suit for trial, it is seen that the defendants cannot be allowed to contend that the plaintiff's right cannot be upheld based on the terms of the compromise memo. That apart, as rightly put forth by the plaintiff's counsel, the Courts below had not accepted the plaintiff's case solely based on the terms of the compromise memo Ex.A7/A11. On the other hand, the plaintiff's case has been accepted by the Courts below on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence projected by the plaintiff, particularly, the acquisition of the right by the plaintiff to use the Koppu channel by way of Ex.A1 and also the admission of the defendants as regards the entitlement of the plaintiff to use the Koppu channel and when further the Koppu channel is found in existence as per the plaint plan based on the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner Exs.C1 and C2, accordingly, on that basis, the court has upheld the right of the plaintiff to use the Koppu channel. In addition to that, they had also placed reliance upon the terms of the compromise memo Ex.A7/A11 for sustaining the plaintiff's case. It is thus found that the Courts below had not squarely placed reliance upon the Ex.A7/A11 for granting the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff. In such view of the matter, it is found that the defendant's counsel, cannot be allowed to contend that the Courts below had erred in relying upon the terms of the compromise memo Ex.A7/A11 for upholding the case, particularly when the suit has been revived, the memo of compromise filed earlier in the suit, would cease to retain the force and accordingly, it is found that the parties accordingly, with open eyes, proceeded with the trial and none had endeavored to invite the attention of the court to pass further orders on the compromise memo as provided under law and particularly, when the parties are vying with each other, for their own reasons, that the compromise memo had not been given effect to, it is found that , no flaw could be attributed on the part of the Courts
