Mithan Lal, J. - (1.) THIS civil revision filed against an order of the learned District Judge, Varanasi, arises under the following circumstances.
(2.) THE opposite party obtained a decree for arrears of rent against Sri Ragho Upadhya and three others from the appellate court. This decree was put into execution Under Section 148 of the Banaras State Tenancy Act (which is akin to Section 168 of the UP Tenancy Act) and then proceedings Under Section 149 were taken. These proceedings Under Section 149 are akin to Section 170 of the UP Tenancy Act. An order of delivery of possession was passed on March 18, 1953 and actual possession was delivered on July 29, 1953. It may also be stated that after the decree was passed a second appeal was filed in this Court and that second appeal is still pending. After the actual delivery of possession the present objection purporting to be Under Section s. 47 and 151 Code of Civil Procedure was filed on August 1, 1953. This objection was dismissed by the executing court on October 21, 1953 and thereafter when the matter came in appeal before the learned District Judge, the merger of Banaras State having taken place, abolition of Zamindari in Banaras also became effective from the date of vesting that is, April 1, 1954. After this vesting the District Judge remanded the objection on September 17, 1954 to the executing court to dispose it of in the light of the new law. After remand the objection was allowed by the executing court holding that the objector Petitioner had become an Adhivasi. The decree -holder went in appeal to the District Judge who on a careful consideration of the whole matter has dismissed the objection and allowed the appeal. It is against this order that the judgment -debtor has filed the present revision.
(3.) THE contention of the Learned Counsel for the applicant is that by means of the supervening law the judgment -debtor applicant became an Adhivasi because he was a recorded occupant over the plots in dispute in 1357 Fasli and consequently the order passed by the learned District Judge is -wrong. Arguments have also been advanced as to the applicability of Section 47 but this is besides the point because no objection has been raised about the applicability of that section. The simple question in the present case requiring consideration is whether the applicant and other judgment -debtors having been ejected in accordance with law in execution of a decree on July 29, 1953 and these judgment -debtors having filed no application as required by Section 232 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, can they be restored to possession by filing this objection Under Section 47.;