MUSHTAQ AHMAD, J. - (1.) BOTH these appeals are by the decree -holder, each arising out of proceedings relating to a separate decree. The decree out of which the appeal first mentioned arose was No. 2331 of 1933 of the Court of Judge Small Causes, Gorakhpur, and the decree out of which the other appeal arose was No. 2128 of the same year and of the same Court. I propose to deal with these appeals together.
(2.) IT is necessary, for introducing the pointsin controversy, to set forth a few facts. On 30th August 1933, the decree No. 2331 of 1933 was passed by the Court already mentioned. On 16th October 1933, the decree -holder made his first application for execution to the Small Cause Court, and on the same date an order was passed transferring the execution case to the Court of Munsif, Bansgaon, where an execution case relating to another decree No. 1142 of 1933 of the Court of Small Causes Gorakhpur was already pending. On 17th September 1941 the appellant made a statement before the Munsif, Bansgaon, in the execution case just mentioned that his applica -tion for execution might be struck off. It is curious that he also added in his statement that the attachment might continue. The learned Munsif accordingly passed an order that the application might be struck off, although equally curiously he also said that the attachment might subsist. On the same date (l7th September 1941) he passed another order in the execution case relating to the decree No. 2331 of 1933 referred to above that the application for execution in that case also should be struck off.
(3.) WHEN the records in the two cases came back to the Small Cause Court at Gorakhpur an order was passed under the signature of the Munsarim and perhaps it would be more correct to say that a note was recorded by him, on the record of each of these two cases that it should be struck off and the file consigned to the Record Room.;