BABU RAM Vs. MANOHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by the judgment-debtors under Section 115, Civil P.C. A suit was brought against (1) Cut Piece Co. Ltd., (2) Babu Ram, (3) Shankar Lal, and (i) Raghunandan Lal as Proprietor of the Firm Bhup Shing Bihari Lal. The suit was ultimately decreed on the basis of a compromise and a joint decree against the Cut Piece Co. Ltd. as well as the three other defendants was passed. It is not now necessary to go behind the compromise decree and try to find out what the basis of the claim was. Babu Ram, Shankar Lal and Raghunandan applied to the Collector under the Encumbered Estates Act and it is not disputed that the Act applies to them. Afterwards an application was filed by these three persons to the execution Court which was executing the respondent's decree with the prayer that the proceedings should be stayed, under Section 7 United Provinces Encumbered Estates Act. The Court summarily rejected the application ordering that the execution should proceed. An appeal was preferred to the Court of the District Judge and along with it there was an application for stay, and both were dismissed by the District Judge.

(2.) The judgment-debtors have come in revision to this Court, praying that the order of the District Judge should be cancelled. The position really is that we have before us the entire record including the order of the execution Court refusing the judgment, debtors application made under Section 7, Encumbered Estates Act. A preliminary objection is taken that as there was a remedy by way of appeal from the order of the execution Court to the District Judge, no revision lies. It ishowever conceded that no appeal lies to the High Court. That being so, this Court has jurisdiction under Section 115, Civil P.C., to entertain the revision if no appeal lies to it. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Gobardhan Das V/s. Dau Dayal that the High Court can interfere in revision with the order of the first Court if no appeal lies to the High Court.

(3.) The a next objection taken is that the order passed by the execution Court was an interlocutory order refusing to stay proceedings and therefore no case has been decided. It iii accordingly argued on the strength of Buddhu Lal V/s. Mewa Ram A.I.R. 1921 All. 1 that the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere. That, however, was a case in which an application had been made under the Code of Civil Procedure during the pendency of the suit. In the present case, the suit has already been disposed of and an application was made under Section 7, Encumbered Estates Act. This is a special Act, the object of which is that all proceedings pending in any Civil or Revenue Court in respect of any debt to which the landlord is subject, shall be stayed. The application therefore starts a fresh proceeding and the dismissal of the application terminates the proceeding which was started by the application. As soon as the application is dismissed, the remedy of the applicant comas to an end and the execution proceedings would not be stayed with the result that execution would proceed-against him. This is contrary to the express provision of Section 7(1)(a). We are therefore of the opinion that the proceeding started by the filing of an application under this section is a fresh proceeding and therefore a case which terminates as soon as the application is dismissed. It (follows that a case has been decided within the meaning of Section 115, Civil P.C.