MANOHAR PERSHAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is on behalf of the judgment-debtor and is directed against the order of the executing court D/-18-10-63 reducing the upset price as prayed by the decree-holder. We were very doubtful as to whether this was an appeal able order. We therefore asked the learned counsel to satisfy us on this point. The learned Counsel relying on the case of Venkataswami vs. Nagayya, AIR 1925 Mad 1142 contended that the appeal was proper and maintainable. We do not agree with the contention of the Counsel. AIR 1925 Mad 1142 was a case where the question was whether a second appeal was entertainable. No doubt in considering that question there was a reference to Order 21, Rule 66 and Section 47 of the C. P. C. But there is nothing in this decision to show that it was held therein that any petition filed under Order 21, Rule 66 and the decision given thereon would be an appeal able order, As the order passed by the lower court does not either relate to execution, satisfaction or discharge of the decree, the appeal would not be maintainable. The learned counsel for the appellant states that if it is held that this appeal is not maintainable the same may be treated as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document