KARAM SINGH Vs. KIRPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that a decree for possession by redemption was passed against the Petitioner by Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana, on September 19, 1974. The decree holder started executing the decree on March 10, 1978. The Petitioner filed objections against the execution to the effect that the decree had been partially satisfied. The learned executing court after recording the statement of the Bailiff held, that the decree had been fully satisfied and consequently it dismissed the execution petition. The decree holder filed an appeal before the District Judge, Ludhiana. At the time of hearing, the counsel for the judgment debtor raised an objection that the order under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not appealable and consequently the appeal was liable to be dismissed. The District Judge held that the appeal was maintainable. He accepted it and remanded the case to the executing court. The judgment debtor has come up in revision against the order of the District Judge to this Court.

(2.) THE only question that arises for determination is as to whether an appeal was maintainable against the order of the executing court deciding the objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The counsel of the Petitioner has vehemently urged that the definition of word 'decree' has been modified and the orders passed under Section 47 of the Code have been taken out of the purview of the definition. According to the counsel, on account of the said change the order under Section 47 is not appealable under Section 96 of the Code, which provides an appeal against a decree On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that a reading of Section 99A of the Code goes to show that an order under Section 47 is appealable to the extent provided in that section.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Respondent referred to Section 99A of the Code which was added by the Amendment Act. It is as follows: