JUDGMENT Kanhaiya Lal, J.
1. In the course of a pending suit brought by the plaintiffs for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the construction of a certain wall by the plaintiffs and for damages, the Pleaders for the parties accompanied by their clients, stated that the sole question in dispute was whether the wall in question belonged to the plaintiffs or the defendants, and that the Court might inspect the locality and the parties shall be bound by the decision at which the Court would arrive on such an inspection. They also stated that they did not want to produce any evidence, oral or documentary, and that the plaintiffs were giving up their claim for damages. The Court fixed a date for the inspection of the locality and in the light of the khasra and the copy of the khasra abadi map on the record, and the measurements made on the spot, it came to the conclusion that both the parties were in possession of an area in excess of that given in the khasra of the village, that they had encroached upon the land belonging to the Government and that the disputed wall was within the boundary of the house of the plaintiffs. Having recorded that finding it decreed the claim of the plaintiffs and granted an injunction in the terms prayed for. One of the defendants subsequently tried to resile from that agreement and filed an appeal from that decision to the lower Appellate Court, which was dismissed. As observed in Sita Ram v. Peare 88 Ind. Cas. 611 : 23 A.L.J. 525 : A.I.R. 1925 All. 558 : L.R. 6 A. 503 Civ : 47 A. 921. in similar circumstances, it was not open to either party to resile from the agreement and that the decision of the Presiding Judge arrived at after an inspection of the locality was binding and no longer open to appeal. In Ram Sunder Misra v. Jai Kiran Singh 87 Ind. Cas. 174 : 47 A. 456 : 23 A.L.J. 251 : L.R. 6 A. 270 Civ : A.I.R. 1925 All. 271 where the defendant had made an offer to the plaintiffs that if a certain witness in the case would eat kachcha food served by the plaintiff, the suit should be decreed, it was held that the offer was perfectly lawful. In Cihnna Venkatasami Naicken v. Venkatasami Naiken 51 Ind. Cas. 827 : 42 M. 625 : 36 M.L.J. 291 : (1919) M.W.N. 221 : 25 M.L.T. 397 a reference of a pending suit to the arbitration of a Presiding Judge along with others as arbitrators was held to be a proceeding extra cursum curiae, and a decree passed in accordance with their decision was. treated as a consent decree, not subject to the provisions of the Second Schedule of the C.P.C., and was, therefore, final. As the parties had stated that there would be no further evidence adduced and agreed to abide by the decision of the Court after the inspection of the locality, that decision must be regarded as final. The appeal is dismissed.