DHARAM SINGH Vs. THAKUR TIKAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a judgment-debtor's appeal and arises out of execution proceedings taken out against him by the decree-holder opposite party under the Tenancy Act. The respondent sought the ejectment of the appellant in execution of his decree for arrears of rent. The execution Court ordered the ejectment of the appellant, Thereafter the appellant applied for review of the order of ejectment and the learned Assistant Collector set aside the original order of ejectment. The respondent went up in appeal to the learned District Judge against the order of the learned Assistant Collector allowing review of the order of ejectment. A preliminary objection was taken before the learned District Judge that no appeal lay. The learned District Judge seems to be of the opinion that no appeal against the order of review lay under Order 47, Rule 7. But he treated the order as one setting aside ejectment under Section 47, Civil P.C., and as such appealable. He allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Assistant Collector setting aside the ejectment. The judgment-debtor has come here in second appeal against this order. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondent that no second appeal lies to this Court. Section 249 of the Agra Tenancy lot is very clear on this point. It says : "No appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal." Under the Agra Tenancy Act an order passed under Section 47, Civil P.C. is not a decree but remains an order. The definition of "decree" given in Section 2, Clause (2) in the Civil P.C., which includes the determination of any question within Section 47, Civil P.C. does not apply to the Agra Tenancy Act. Under the Agra Tenancy Act, a "decree" as defined in Section 3, Clause (14) means any order which, so far as the Revenue Court is concerned, finally disposes of a suit. It does not include the determination of any question within Section 47, Civil P.C. Consequently no second appeal would lie from an order passed under Section 47, Civil P.C., under the Tenancy Act. It has been urged on behalf of the a appellant that a second appeal would lie inasmuch as the learned District Judge assumed jurisdiction which he did not possess. The argument is that the appeal to the learned District Judge was not from any order passed under Section 47, Civil P.C., but was from an order allowing the application for review. As the case did not fall under Order 47, Rule 7 no appeal lay. The learned District Judge was not right in treating the f1, order as one passed under Section 47, Civil P.C., and entertaining the appeal. He therefore acted without jurisdiction. The question is whether even if it were so, a second pr appeal would lie. The learned Counsel has no relied on Hira Lal V/s. Tikam Singh , Nand Kishore V/s. Dhanpat Rai and Khim Chand V/s. Keshar Singh . In Hira Lal V/s. Tikam Singh an order passed under Section 47 was treated by the lower Appellate Court as a decree and an appeal was entertained by it. It was observed there: If the lower Appellate Court has assumed jurisdiction and passed an order on appeal, a second appeal will lie. If no appeal lay to the lower he Appellate Court, and it has acted on an assumed or jurisdiction the High Court has power in revision to revise that order.

(2.) In Nand Kishore V/s. Dhanpat Rai an objection was treated by the lower Appellate Court as one under Section 47. It was held: Where the lower Court disallows objection in execution of a decree, treating it as being one under Section 47, an appeal lies to the High Court, even if it is ultimately held that the proceedings were not properly started under Section 47.

(3.) In Khim Chand V/s. Keshar Singh an appeal was filed in the Court of the District Judge from an order of the Assistant Collector dismissing an execution application. On the appeal being dismissed by the learned District Judge, a second appeal was filed in this a Court. The appeal from the order of the Assistant Collector lay to the Deputy Commissioner and not to the District Judge. It was held: That a second appeal to the High Court would certainly lie in so far as the District Judge assumed a jurisdiction he did not possess.