B.Dayal, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 133 (1) (a) and (c) of the Constitution for a certificate either that the case fulfils the requirements of Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution or in the alternative that the case is fit one for appeal to be Supreme Court.
(2.) The proceedings out of which this application has arisen had a very chequered career. Only the very relevant facts may be briefly stated. The applicants were judgment-debtors in a decree passed under Order 34. Rule 5. C. P. C. dated the 23rd of October, 1935 for more than rupees twenty seven thousand. On the 6th of November, 1941, the decree was put in execution. The judgment-debtors applied for amendment of the decree under the U. P. Debt Redemption Act. On the 26th of January, 1942, further proceedings in execution were stayed till the disposal of that application. The judgment-debtors contended that the decree had been fully satisfied. The decree-holders filed their objection to the application. Some orders were passed against the decree-holders which were not complied with and on the 28th of April, 1943, the objection filed by the decree-holders was struck off. On the 2nd of June, 1943, the application filed by the judgment-debtors was allowed ex parte and it was held that the decree-had been satisfied. On the same date although it was not a date fixed for the hearing of the execution application itself, the Court passed the following order ex parte: "In view of the order on the application for amendment of the decree no amount is due on it. The execution proceedings therefore cannot continue. They are struck off on that ground. Costs with parties". The decree-holders filed two appeals -- one-against the order, striking off the objection to the judgment-debtor's application and the other against the final order dated the 2nd of June, 1943 holding that the whole decree had been satisfied. But they did not file any appeal against the order passed in the execution case striking it off and consigning the papers to the record room. The two appeals filed by the decree-holders were ultimately allowed by the High Court on the I4th of February, 1950 and the amendment application of the judgment-debtors was sent back to the court below for decision on merits. This application was heard and the court dismissed it on 27th March, 1954, holding that the decree had remained unsatisfied and the decree-holders were entitled to execute it for the amount prayed for in the execution application. After dismissal of this application by the judgment-debtors, the decree-holders applied on the 30th of April, 1954 that the execution case be revived as it had been hem by the Court that the amount claimed was due to the decree-holders. This application for revival purported to be under Section 151, C P. C. The Civil Judge who heard this application dismissed the same on two grounds; firstly that the execution case having been dismissed could not be revived and secondly that, in any case, the application for revival was beyond time under Article 181 of the Limitation Act. Against this order of the learned Civil Judge an Ex. First Appeal was originally filed in this Court which came up for hearing on the 8th of August, 1961. On that date an objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-judgment-debtors that no appeal lay against the order dismissing the decree-holders' application under Section 151, C.P.C, praying for revival. Learned counsel for the decree-holders at once conceded that no appeal la--and prayed that his appeal may be treated as a application under Section 115, C. P. C. and the Court may exercise its revisional jurisdiction in the matter. This Court acceded to this request and permitted the learned counsel for the decree-holders to convert the appeal into a revision and to head and decide it as such. This Court held that the order of the learned Civil Judge passed on the 2nd of June, 1943 on the execution application quoted above, did not amount to final disposal of the execution case and that the application made by the decree-holders was not one for which any period of limitation was prescribed by the Limitation Act it merely reminded the court of its duty to take up the matter in execution which was pending and this could be done even orally. In any case, right to make such an application arose in favour of the decree-holders only after the dismissal of the judgment-debtor's application for amendment on the 27th of March, 1954 and the application having been made within one month and a few days after that order was well within time even if Article 181 of the Limitation Act applied. Upon this finding the revision was allowed and the executing court was directed to proceed with the execution. Against this order, the present application for certificate has been filed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that this application is maintainable under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution as the valuation is over rupees twenty thousand and the order of the trial Court had been reversed by the High Court.;