DWARKA PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS is the judgment-debtor's revision application and arises in the following circumstances :
(2.) HAZARILAL obtained a money decree against Jagdish Prasad judgment-debtor on July 14, 1972 and started execution proceedings on December 11, 1973. In the aforesaid execution proceedings immovable property of the Judgment-debtor was attached on January 25, 1974. The judgment-debtor filed an application before the Debt Relief Court on August 26, 1974. The proceedings before the Debt Relief Court continued for some time until by the order dated December 17, 1976 the claim of HAZARILAL was discharged for all purposes, as the decree holder creditor HAZARILAL did not file any statement of the claim within the meaning of Section 8 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). In the meantime, the executing court proceeded with the auction sale of the house property which was attached and on November 10, 1974 the property in question was sold by public auction in favour of the non-petitioner Dashrathsingh for a sum of Rs. 10,000/ -. An application was filed by the judgment-debtor under Order 21 Rule 97 C. P. C. for setting aside the sale which was dismissed and an appeal in that matter proved to be infructuous. The auction sale was confirmed and a sale certificate was issued in favour of the non-petitioner on April 13, 1977. Thereafter the judgment-debtor filed an applicaton on May 12, 1977 in the executing court alleging that the entire proceedings for sale were illegal and void and that possession of the property, which was the subject matter of the auction sale, should not be given to the auction purchaser by the executing court. This application was dismissed by the executing court on July 25, 1977 and an appeal was preferred by the judgment-debtor before the Additional District Judge, Dausa, who dismissed the same by his order dated August 11, 1978 on the ground that no appeal was maintainable in respect of an objection petition preferred under sec. 47 C. P. C. Hense this revision application has been filed in this Court. The petitioner has challenged both the orders, the one passed by the executing court on July 25, 1977 as well as the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Dausa on August 11, 1978, in this revision petition. However, at the time of arguments it was conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an appeal was not maintainable in the matter because of the amendment introduced in the Code of Civil Procedure by the Amending Act of 1976. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Mohan Dass vs. Kamla Devi (1) that since the definition of 'decree' has been amended by the Amending Act of 1976, by deletion of the words 'section 47 or' any order passed under Section 47 C. P. C. would no longer be treated as a decree and neither a first appeal nor a second appeal would lie in respect of such an order. Thus, the first appellate court was right in dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner as the said appeal was filed against the order passed under section 47 C. P. C. and not maintainable in law. As regards the order passed by the executing court on July 25, 1977, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the claim of Hazarilal decree-holder having been discharged for all purposes by the order of the Debt Relief Court dated December 17, 1976, it shall be deemed as if there was no debt of Hazarilal at all and the entire execution proceedings were invalid, as the petitioner had already submitted an application before the Debt Relief Court as early as on August 26, 1974. It may be pointed out in this connection that the auction sale which was effected on November 10, 1974 has not been set aside and it stands intact even upto this day. The said sale has also been confirmed and the decree-holder has also taken away the decretal amount in pursuance of the execution proceedings. At present, there is only an application of the auction purchaser under O. 21, R. 95 C. P. C. for delivery of possession of the property in question, in pursuance of the sale certificate issued to him by the executing court on April 13,1977. It was held by Rajamannar. Chief Justice of the Madras High Court as he then was, in R. Govinda Naicker vs. National Paper Company (2) that an application filed by the auction purchaser for delivery of possession was not an application for the execution of the decree, within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Madras Indebted Agriculturists Temporary Relief Act, 1954. It was observed in that case that so far as the decree for payment of money was concerned, there could be no application of execution of that decree after the sale has taken place in execution of such decree and confirmed and the sale certificate has been issued in pursuance thereof to the auction purchaser. A learned Judge of the Madras High Court has taken the same view in a recent case in P. Subramaniam vs. M. Kandasamy (3) and has held that an application by the auction purchaser for delivery of possession is not a proceeding contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, 1954 and cannot be stayed by the Debt Relief Court. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the civil court could not continue with the proceedings for the delivery of possession to the auction purchaser on account of the bar contained in Section 21 of the Act is negatived by the aforesaid decisions of the Madras High Court, which relate to analogous provisions of law. What section 21 of the Act bars is the jurisdiction of the Civil court in respect of the claim arising out of the debt which has been discharged or which will be deemed to have been discharged under section 8 of the Act. If the debt of Hazarilal decree-holder may be considered to have been discharged by the Debt Relief Court under section 8 of the Act, even then no claim in respect of the recovery of such debt is being prosecuted or proceeded within the present case. Thus, it is apparent that the present application by the auction purchaser before the executing court for the delivery of possession cannot be interfered with on account of the fact that an order of discharge of the debt of Hazarilal has been passed under Section 8 of the Act. The applica-tion of the auction purchaser for delivery of possession is not based on the decree debt of Hazarilal, but the same is based on the sale certificate, which has already been issued in favour of the auction purchaser by the executing court. The executing court was, therefore, right in rejecting the objection of the judgment debtor on this score. It may also be observed that the decree-holder has already received the amount due under the decree and the auction sale has also been confirmed by the executing court. In these circumstances, the auction purchaser, who has already parted with the price for which he has purchased the property in dispute at the auction sale, cannot be deprived of his right to obtain possession of the said property under Order 21 Rule 95 C. P. C. I find no force in this revision application and the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. . ;