- (1.) This case was instituted in this Court as a revision application Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Subsequently learned Counsel for the applicant made an application to this Court praying that it be converted into a first appeal from order. The prayer for conversion was granted but the case was fixed for hearing on the question whether this case should be registered as a regular first appeal from a decree or from an order having the force of a decree or as a first appeal from an order. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, learned Counsel for the opposite-party and learned Junior Standing Counsel. In addition we had the benefit of arguments by Mr. K.C. Saxena, learned Counsel for the Appellants in the first appeal filed by Bohare Uttam Chand and others against Haji Mohammad Habibul Hasan on 20-2-1956 against an order in another case. The facts of the two cases are very similar and the same question arises in the latter case also. For the sake of convenience, however, we shall only refer to the facts of this case, i.e., Civil Revision No. 1438 of 1955.
(2.) Opposite-party No. 1 Raja Kishori Raman Singh of Mursan Estate, Aligarh had filed an application Under Section 4 of the EE Act. He was indebted to only one creditor viz., Messrs. Nand Ram Chhotey Lal, Belanganj, Agra. This revision has been filed by the latter. In the proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act properties liable to attachment and sale in lieu of debt of the opposite-party No. 1 were declared and subsequently a decree was passed Under Section 14 of the EE Act in favour of the applicant in respect of the said debt. Opposite-party No. 2 is the Collector of Aligarh who was in-charge of the estate of opposite-party No. 1 while it was under the management of Court of Wards. Opposite-party No. 2 is no longer interested in this proceeding. The decree which was passed Under Section 14 of the EE Act was transmitted Under Section 19 to the Collector for liquidation of debt together with a list of property liable to attachment and sale for realizing the amount of the decree. Before the liquidation proceedings could be completed by the Collector, the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act (U. P. Act No. XV of 1953) came into force. Further the UPEE Act was amended by the UPEE Amendment Act XIII of 1954. As a result, the applicant (in this revision) moved an application Under Section 4(1) of the U.P. Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act for action being taken under that provision of law. When this application came up for hearing, it appears that the applicant did not press the application but the court proceeded to deal with it and to pass orders on it in accordance with Section 4 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act. The final order Under Section 4 of the said Act was passed on 12-11-55.) The present revision was filed against that order. The preliminary question that has arisen before us, is whether an appeal lies at all against that order, and if so, whether the appeal should be treated as a first appeal from order or as a regular first appeal from a decree or an order having the force of a decree. If an appeal does not lie, the further question that would arise is whether a revision can lie from such in order Notice of this case was also given to the learned Junior Standing Counsel as the decision of this question affected the amount of court fee leviable in this proceeding. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that neither a first appeal from order nor a regular first appeal can be entertained against this order. We are further of the opinion that, if a party does not choose to come in revision against such an order, the right that accrues to the party for approaching the High Court is by way of a regular appeal from the amended decree which comes into existence Under Section 19A, of the UP EE Act as introduced by the Amending Act of 1954. We now proceed to give our reasons for this view.
(3.) The main circumstance that has led us to the view expressed above is that the Legislature, while enacting the provisions of Section 4 of the Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act and while introducing Section 19A in the EE Act, has envisaged that there would be two separate and independent proceedings. Under the Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act, an application is to be moved before the court which passed the decree and the proceedings under that section are taken by the court in that capacity by virtue of the jurisdiction specially conferred on it by that provision of law. The procedure to be followed by the court under Section 4 which culminates in an order reducing the amount due under the decree has been laid down in that section. There is to be a further order apportioning the reduced amount where the mortgaged property consists partly of estate and partly of property other than estate. The proceedings before the court which passed the decree then come to an end. The provision contained in Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act applies to decrees irrespective of the court by which they may have been passed. They may be decrees under the Code of Civil Procedure or may be decrees under the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief or decrees by a Special Judge under the UP EE Act. The court, which passed the decree shall complete its proceeding on the application presented Under Section 4 by passing an order of reduction and of apportionment as mentioned above. Subsequently the court is not required to take any further action. The effect of the order made Under Section 4 on the rights of parties is governed by Section 7 of the U.P. Zamindari Debt Reduction Act. Under that provision of law when the amount has been reduced in accordance with the provision of Section 4, the decree, to the extent of the reduction so effected, is to be deemed for all purposes and on all occasions to have been duly satisfied. This is the general provision that lays down how the order of reduction Under Section 7 is to be given effect to. It appears to us that the language of Section 7 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act indicates that on an order of reduction having been passed Under Section 4, the original decree, in respect of which the amount has been reduced, continues to remain in existence as a whole but a part of it is deemed to be satisfied. The final result of reduction is achieved not by wiping out the original decree and substituting an amended decree but by recording satisfaction of apart on it. The original decree therefore, remains an effective decree. The fact that the legislature lays down that satisfaction of part of the original decree is to be recorded itself presumes that the integrity of the original decree is not broken. On the other hand, amendment of a decree sweeps away or supercedes altogether the original decree and brings into existence a new one. This is therefore, not a case of amendment of original decree, but merely a satisfaction of the same.;