Ranawat, J. - (1.) THIS is a miscellaneous application by Narsinghbux.
(2.) AT the time of the Jaipur State, under the Jaipur Civil Procedure Code there was a special provision regarding the execution of the decrees passed against State grantees and according to that procedure the Chief Court or the High Court of Jaipur had to fix an annuity in respect of each such grantee, which was to be distributed among all the decree-holders seeking execution against such State grantee. It is said there were civil decrees against the estate of Narsinghbux and Narainbux, who are two brothers and who are State grantees. The property, which was a State grant, belonging to both of them was leased first under the orders of the Jaipur Chief Court and then under the orders of the Jaipur High Court. The order with which we are concerned is dated the 29th September 1948. It was made by a Division Bench of the Jaipur High Court. By that order the State grant belonging to the judgment-debtors was leased to Narainbux on the condition of paying annually an amount of Rs. 2450/-, out of which 50% was to be paid to the judgment-debtors for their maintenance and the remaining portion was to be distributed among the several decree-holders through the court. During the time of the Jaipur Administration this arrangement continued but after the merger of the Jaipur State into the State of Rajasthan and after the coming into force of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 the lessee wanted to make a deposit of the annuity and filed an application to that effect in the court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City, on the 1st of August 1951, but the court refused to accept the amount saying that the Bachat rules were not in force and the court could not accept the amount under those rules. The lessee being dissatisfied with that order has filed an application in this court and it has been urged on his behalf that he holds the property from the court and as per terms of the contract it is his duty to pay the amount in court and should be permitted to make a deposit in accordance with the terms of the lease, the term of which had not yet expired. The lease, it may be mentioned here, was for five years and it would come to an end some time in the year 1953. Narainbux has opposed the application of Narsinghbux on the ground that the order which had been made by the Jaipur High Court at that time was not in accordance with the Bachat rules and that order should not be enforced now. We have heard the learned counsel of Narsinghbux. We cannot sit in judgment over the order of the Jaipur High Court, which had been passed as long back as September 1948. That order is final. The objection, therefore, of Narsinghbux against that order cannot be heard. Under sec. 20 of the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act No. 2 of 1951 anything which had been duly done under the laws and rules in force before the new Civil Procedure Code came into force has been served. The order under which the property of the judgment-debtors had been taken into custody of the court and according to which a lease had been granted by the court cannot be ignored solely for the reason that the Bachat rules have now no place in the New Civil Procedure Code. Under sec. 51 of the Civil Procedure Code a decree can be executed by means of appointment of a Receiver. The nature of these proceedings under which a lease was granted by the Jaipur High Court is analogous to the proceedings relating to appointment of Receivers under the new Code for execution of a decree. The property is under the management of the court through a lessee who is virtually the Receiver appointed by the* court, and security has been taken from him for due fulfilment of the terms of his lease. There was no reason for the learned Civil Judge to have refused to accept the amount which was to be deposited by the petitioner in that court under the order of the former Jaipur High Court. A preliminary objection has also been raised by Mr. Mishra that the petitioner has no locus standi for an application to this court and he should have filed an appeal to the court of the District Judge against the order of the Civil Judge. We are afraid, as the Bachat rules are not in force the order in question does not appear to be appealable. The court of the Civil Judge obviously has refused to exercise jurisdiction in this matter when it ought to have exercised its jurisdiction. It is a clear case which falls within the scope of sec. 115 C.P.C. and this court has got jurisdiction to issue a direction to that court to act according to law. There is also another way of looking at this matter. The Bachat proceedings under which a lease had been granted originated in the High Court of Jaipur and it was under the orders of the High Court that the court of the Civil Judge was taking deposits and distributing the assets among the decree-holders. It was, therefore, open to the lessee to have approached this court when the direction issued by the Jaipur High Court was not being complied with. The preliminary objection raised by Mr. Mishra has, therefore, no force. We allow this application and it is ordered that the Civil Judge should not refuse to accept the deposits which may be made by Narainbux from time to time in accordance with the terms of the lease granted by the High Court of the former Jaipur State.;