RAMESHWAR DAYAL Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal from an order of remand passed in a suit for profits brought by a cosharer against another cosharer under Section 227, Agra Tenancy Act. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. Every order passed by a Revenue Court is not necessarily a decree. A decree has been defined as meaning an order which so far as the Revenue Court is concerned, finally disposes of the-suit.

(2.) Under the old Agra Tenancy Act, it had been consistently held by this Court that there was no provision for an appeal from a mere order as distinct from a decree. Section 240 of the new Act lays down that no appeal shall lie from any decree-or order passed by any Court under this Act except as provided in the Act. It follows that there is no absolute right of appeal, and such right cannot be claimed unless there is provision for it in the Act itself. The Scheme of the Act is to provide for an appeal from the original decrees and also for appeals from orders in certain specified cases.

(3.) So far as an appeal to the High Court-is concerned it is referred to in Section 216, but that relates to appeals from appellate decrees and not from appellate orders. Then follows a heading "appeals from orders." Under this heading. Secs.247 and 248 provide for appeals to Collector, Commissioner and the Board from certain orders passed by Revenue-Courts. It is noteworthy that in Section 248(3) there is reference to Order 43, Rule 1, Civil P.C. This fact in itself shows that if the whole of Order 43, Rule 1, were automatically applicable there would have been no necessity to refer to it specifically in this subsection.