S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The salient and meaningful questions which arise for determination in this reference to the Full Bench may well be formulated in the terms following :

1. Whether an appeal is still maintainable against an order (other than an interlocutory one) under S.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure despite the amendment of S.2(2) thereof, and other statutory changes wrought therein by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 ?

2.Whether the abolition of a right of appeal by the competent legislature would attract the equality clause of Art.14 of the Constitution and involve any consequential discrimination in this field ?

3.Whether Parshava Properties Ltd. V/s. A.K. Bose, AIR 1979 Pat 308 lays down the law correctly in the aforesaid twin context ?

4.If the answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, would S.97(2)(a) of the amending Act preserve the right of appeal only in respect of the pending appeals or would extend also to cases where the right to file the appeal had already accrued prior to the 1st of February, 1977 against an order passed under S.47 of the Code ?

5.If it is held under question No. 4 that S.97(2)(a) saves the right of appeal even where it had already accrued prior to the enforcement of the amending Act, when does such a right to file appeal accrue ?

2. In view of the pristinely legal issues involved, the briefest reference to the facts suffices. Opposite Parties Nos. 5 and 6 had instituted Title Suit No. 112 of 1973 in the Court of the Sub Judge, Bhagalpur, for partition of the properties mentioned in the plaint claiming 1/3rd share for themselves. On behalf of the petitioners it is averred that ultimately the parties settled the differences and filed a compromise petition and a compromise decree was recorded by the learned Sub Judge on the 18th of August, 1973 with the direction that the compromise petition shall form part of the decree. The petitioners claimed that they had paid the entire amount of Rs. 9169/- barring the marginal figure of Rs. 272/- under the said compromise. Yet opposite party No. 1 put the compromise decree in execution (vide Execution Case No. 9 of 1975) for realisation of the entire amount and kept the execution process suppressed and ultimately got sold 22 bighas out of 33 bighas of valuable lands representing the share of the petitioners in the papers as well. The petitioners on getting knowledge of the execution proceeding filed an objection under S.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 64 of 1977. After contest, the learned Subordinate Judge passed a detailed order dated the 8th of August, 1978 dismissing the same.

3. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners originally preferred a Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 196 of 1978 in this Court but an objection was taken by the Registry that after the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as the amending Act) no appeal was maintainable and by an order dated 29th of June, 1979 the appeal was permitted to be converted into the present civil revision. It would appear that subsequently the Division Bench judgement in Parshava Properties Ltd. V/s. A.K. Bose, AIR 1979 Pat 308 was rendered and on behalf of the petitioners the stand was taken that the impugned order of the Sub Judge was appealable and in the circumstances the revision petition should be allowed to be reconverted into a miscellaneous appeal. This was objected to by the learned counsel for the opposite party and the learned single Judge by his order dated the 17th of September, 1981 referred the matter to a Division Bench to determine whether the case should be heard as a revision application or an appeal. Before the Division Bench the ratio of Parshava Properties Ltd.s case (supra) was strenuously pressed on behalf of the petitioners in support of the stand that an appeal would still lie against the dismissal of the objecti