(1.) These two applications in revision have been heard together as they arise out of execution proceedings in respect of the same decree. Application No. 5 of 1949, came up for hearing before a learned Judge of this Court who found that the question involved was of some importance and doubted the soundness of the decision of a Division Bench in -- 'Durga Baksh Singh v. Umanath Baksh Singh', AIR 1944 Oudh 90 (A). He, therefore, directed that the application may be placed before a Full Bench for hearing. The other application for revision, No. 180 of 1951, was also subsequently ordered to be put up along with revision application No. 5 of 1949.
(2.) One Mulhay obtained a decree under Section 183 of the U. P. Tenancy Act against Mathura and others on 11-9-1946. As Mathura was in doubt as to whether an appeal lay to the Commissioner or to the District Judge he instituted two appeals -- one in the Court of the Commissioner and another in the Court of the District Judge.
(3.) Both these were dismissed. The appeal to the Commissioner was dismissed on 14-4-1947, on the ground that no appeal lay to him while the appeal instituted in the Court of the District Judge was dismissed on merits. An appeal against this appellate order of the District Judge is now pending in this Court.