RAM NIWAS Vs. MITHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The determination of the ambit of sub-ss. (2)(a) and (3) of S. 97 of the Civil P. C. (Amendment) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act, is the legal issue of some substance that falls for consideration in this referred revision petition.

(2.) This revision petition, in the first instance, came up before Goyal, J. who finding himself unable to subscribe to the view enunciated by Sharma, J. in two reported decisions in Darshan Kumar v. Raghunandan Sharma, (1978) 80 Pun LR 368 and Surjit Singh v. Sardara Singh, (1978) 80 Pun LR 779 and a similar view taken in Orissa High Court decision reported in Nanda Kishore Moharana v. Mahabir Prasad Lath, AIR 1978 Orissa 129 and also finding a contrary view being taken in Mohan Dass v. Kamala Devi, AIR 1978 Raj 127, referred the matter to the larger Bench and that is how the matter is before us.

(3.) In order to appreciate the legal point, a reference to certain basic facts at this very stage would be relevant. The petitioner herein preferred objections under S. 47 of the Civil P. C. which were dismissed by the executing Court, vide order dated 16-7-1977. Against that order, the objector preferred an appeal to the District Judge who held that, in view of the amendment effected in S. 2(2) (a) of the Civil P. C. by S. 3 of the Amending Act, the order passed under S. 47 of the Civil P. C. ceased to be a decree and, therefore, no appeal was competent. This order came to be assailed in the High Court in the present revision petition.