RAM CHARAN SAHU Vs. JUMNA PRASAD SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a judgment-debtor's appeal purporting to be an appeal from an order passed in execution. The order in question is in the following words: In the sale proclamation the valuation be fixed at 50 times the land revenue.

(2.) This order was passed when there was a dispute as to the valuation to be entered in the proclamation of sale. It is obvious that there has been no adjudication of the rights of the parties and such an order therefore does not amount to a decree within the meaning of Section 47 read with Sub-section 2, Civil P.C. This view is supported by the case of Ajudhia Prasad V/s. Gopi Nath [1917] 39 All. 415 and followed in Nathu Lal V/s. Yasodha Devi . We agree with the view that every order passed in proceedings under Order 21, Rule 66 cannot be a decree within the meaning of Section 47 unless it amounts to an adjudication on the rights of parties. In the case of Shaim Lal V/s. Boshan Lal [1916] 35 I.C. 230 Piggott, J., was careful not to decide this point, but all the same remarked: It might be equally dangerous to lay down that all orders passed by an executing Court in the course of proceedings held under Order 21, Rule 66, Civil P.C., are decrees and appealable as such.

(3.) The opinion of Walsh, J. in that case is in favour of the appellant. We are however not prepared to say that every order passed in proceedings held under Order 21, Rule 66 is a decree. In our opinion the order in question is not a decree and is therefore not appealable at all. The appeal is dismissed with costs.