Bishan Narain, J. - (1.) The facts relevant for the decision of Civil Revision No. 217-D of 1953, First Appeal from Order No. 13-D of 1954 and Execution First Appeal No. 137-D of 1954 are briefly stated as follows:
(2.) On 28-10-1947 one Jhunnu Mal who is alleged to have been carrying on business in Lahore mortgaged his property situated in Delhi with Balkishan Das for Rs. 40,000/-. The mortgage executed in this transaction was admittedly a simple mortgage. Balkishan Das filed a suit on the basis of this mortgage and on 1-41950 the Court passed a decree and ordered Jhunnu Mal to pay the decretal amount in instalments. It appears that Jhunnu Mal made defaults in the payment of these Instalments and on 6-10-1950 Balkishan Das filed an application for execution of his decree in the Court of Shri P. N. Thukral. After certain proceedings had been taken the judgment-debtor applied to the executing Court on 15-1-1952 under Section 5, Displaced Persona (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951. Shri P. N. Thukral framed two preliminary issues with a view to find whether the judgment-debtor was a displaced person or not and whether the decretal debt in question was a debt within the Act or not. After taking evidence by his order dated 24-11-1952 Shri P. N. Thukral held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, but on the merits he gave his findings that Jhunnu Mal was a displaced person but that the debt was not a debt within the Debts Adjustment Act. While this petition was pending the judgment- debtor made another application under Section 5 and this time this application was made to a Tribunal under the Act and was made over to Shri Banwari Lal. While this petition was pending the judgment-debtor made a third application under the same section on 25-7-1952 but that application was dismissed on 1311- 1952 on the ground that a previous application was still pending before a Tribunal. In the application of 6-2-1952 an issue was framed reading: "Whether the liabilities of which adjustment is sought in this petition are debts as defined in Act 70 of 1951 according to the allegations in this plaint and the statement of the petitioner recorded today?" Shri Banwari Lal decided this issue against the petitioner by his order dated 7-61953 and framed the issue on the merits, the first of which is "Whether the petitioner is a displaced person"? The decree-holder has filed a petition for a revision (Civil) Revision No. 217-D of 1953) against this order which will be decided by this order.
(3.) It appears that later on Balkrishan Das decree-holder filed another application and the Tribunal framed the following issue arising out of this new petition: "Whether in view of the facts that the mortgage is in respect of property situated in India and that the applicant has not got any claim registered, can the present petition proceed against the decree-holder?" This application was decided by Shri G. K. Bhatnagar by order dated 6-2-1954 when he held that the mortgage debt of Balkrishan Das does fall within the purview of the Debts Adjustment Act, and dissatisfied, with that order Jhunnu Mal has filed an appeal in this Court (First Appeal from Order No. 13-D of 1954).;