SARWAR ALI, J.

1. This application raises an interesting but difficult question in relation to interpretation of Sec.2 (2), Civil P.C. ("the Code"), as it now stands after the amendment of the Code. The point under consideration is not covered by either a decision of the Supreme Court or a bench decision of this Court. But first the facts.

2. The predecessor-in-interest of the opposite party filed a suit being Title Suit No. 17/51 of 1949/50 for various reliefs. They included : (a) a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to quarry limestone and manufacture lime from the lower and upper Murli Hills; and (b) the defendants be permanently injuncted from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property described in the schedule to the plaint. The suit was dismissed on 12-4-1951. On appeal the High Court modified the decree on 15-11-1970 (sic). A further appeal was taken to the Supreme Court which was disposed of on 22-8-1967. The decree of the High Court was modified. It was held, inter alia, that the State of Bihar, its agents and servants, and Messrs Dalmia Jain and Company Ltd. are restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs possession in respect of plot No. 168 of village Bakhnour Plot Nos. 42, 128, 130 and 44 (excluding the lands acquired for the Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Ltd.) of village Samahuta so long as the tenancy rights vested in the plaintiff are not lawfully determined.

3. On 8-1-1968 an application for execution was filed. It was stated in the execution petition as follows :-

"That in spite of the decree of the Supreme Court the defendants judgement-debtors although has and had an opportunity to obey it and are wilfully disturbing the possession of the decree-holder on the aforesaid plots and are trespassing over the aforesaid plots with the view to go to the upper Murli Hill."

It was prayed in the execution petition that the properties as detailed be attached and that Sri J.P. Saxena, a Director of Parshava Properties Ltd. (Dalmia Jain and Company having been subsequently named as Parshava Properties Ltd.) be detained in civil prison. Thus it was prayed that action under Order 21, Rule 32, Civil P.C. be taken.

4. An objection under Sec. 47, Civil P.C. was filed by the petitioner. The allegation that the judgement-debtors or its employees were disturbing the possession of decree-holder on the plots claimed was denied. It was further contended that there was no violation or disobedience of the order of any court. The court below having heard the parties has overruled the objection and has held that there was wilful and flagrant disobedience of the direction of the Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case it, therefore, thought fit, to grant leave of the Court to the decree-holder for detaining in civil prison the Director or other Principal Officers named in the petition for execution. It further ordered that the decree be enforced by attachment of property.

5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid decision of the learned Subordinate Judge the petitioner filed a Civil Revision application. A first appeal numbered as First Appeal 916/1978 has also been filed.

6. When this Civil Revision application was listed for hearing before a learned Single Judge it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that it was the First Appeal and not Civil Revision which was maintainable against the impugned order. The learned Single Judge has referred this case to the Division Bench.

7. It is not in dispute that the determination of the court below in this case is under Sec. 47, Civil P.C. According to the law as it stood before the recent amendment of 1976 such an order was appealable as a decree. This was so because the definition of decree included by a deeming Section "determination of any question within Sec. 47" of the Code. Now that fiction has been eliminated by the amended definition of decree. The question which remains to be considered is whether all orders passed under Sec. 47 of the Code are e