Chakravartti, J. - (1.) This Rule has caused an interesting debate on two interesting questions of law.
(2.) The Petitioner, Subodh Gopal Bose, purchased touzi No. 6 of the 24-Parganas Collectorate at a revenue sale held on January 6, 1936. The sale of the touzi was for its own arrears. Having purchased it and acquired the. rights conferred by Section 37 of the Bengal Land-Revenue Sales Act, the Petitioner became desirous of evicting the opposite parties from a certain area of the land which they were occupying. He seems to have taken a good deal of time in making up his mind to take an active step, because it was not till January 5, 1948, which was exactly on the last day of the period of limitation, that he brought a suit in court. The suit appears to have proceeded at a very slow pace, because one finds that when in 1950 the Bengal Land-Revenue Sales Act was amended by West Bengal Act VII of 1950, the suit was still pending. The amending Act made certain major alterations in the revenue law of the State. By Section 4, it substituted for the whole Section 37 of the principal Act a new section which curtailed the rights of a purchaser at a revenue sale to a substantial extent and, by Section 7 it provided for the abatement of suits, proceedings and appeals of certain kinds, pending at the date of its commencement. Soon after the amending Act had come into force, the opposite parties made an application before the learned Judge for an order that the Petitioner's suit had abated. The learned Judge, on hearing the parties, gave effect to that contention. Thereafter the Petitioner moved this Court and obtained the present Rule.
(3.) On behalf of the opposite parties, Mr. Roy took a preliminary objection that the Petitioner should have preferred an appeal and not moved this Court in revision, because the order passed by the learned Judge amounted, according to him, to a decree.;