S. K, Jha. J.

Leave to appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent having been granted by G. N. Prasad J, this appeal was filed and is directed against the judgment and order dated the 1st February, 1967, passed by the learned Single Judge. The decree holder is the appellant. The appellant had instituted a suit for rent being Rent Suit No. 423 R. 8 of 1952-53 in the court of Rent Suit Deputy Collector under the-Chotanagpur Tenancy Act 1908 (Bengal Act 6 of 1908) [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] as amended by the Chotanagpur Tenancy (Amendment) Act 1947 (Bihar Act XXV of 1947) [hereinafter referred to as 'the Amending Act'.] The Rent Suit Deputy Collector dismissed the appellant's claim for rent of Sam bat 2008. The appellant filed an appeal before the Judicial Commissioner and his claim was decreed in appeal. On 27.2.1958 the decree-holder appellant filed an application being Execution Case No, 359 R. 9 of 1957•58 before the Rent Suit Deputy Collector for executing the aforesaid decree. That application was dismissed as being barred by limitation and the execution proceeding was, therefore, struck off by the Rent Suit Deputy Collector by an order dated 14. 7. 1962. Being aggrieved by this order the appellant filed Miscellaneous Appeal, No. 32 of 1962 in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Chotanagpur, Ranchi which was finally heard by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner on merits held that if the appeal were maintainable, it was bound to 'succeed, but the appeal itself was misconceived and not maintainable after the amendment of the Act by the Amending Act. Having thus held, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable by him by an order dated 17th December, 1963. Against the aforesaid order of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, the appellant preferred a miscellaneous second appeal being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 80 of 1964 in this Court. The learned Single Judge agreed with the reasons given by the first appellate court and held that the proper forum of appeal in this case was the court of the Deputy Commissioner and not that of the Judicial Commissioner. The decree-holder's appeal before this Court was accordingly dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the view taken by the courts below that the Amending Act had made a change in the forum of appeal from orders in execution proceedings is not correct. It has been urged that is does not stand to reason that whereas the appeal from the decree of the Rent Suit Deputy Collector in suits of the present nature would still lie before the Judicial Commissioner, an appeal against an order passed in execution thereof would lie not to the Judicial Commissioner but to the Deputy Commissioner, It has been further contended that under the Act as it stood prior to the amendment, both the decree and order in execution thereof were admittedly appealable to the Judicial Commissioner, and there is nothing in the Amending Act which would go to show that the right of appeal to the Court of Judicial Commissioner with regard to orders passed in execution proceedings can be said to have been taken away and the jurisdiction to hear such appeals vested in that of the Deputy Commissioner, In order to examine the correctness of this contention, and as the matter is of considerable importance in so far as there is no authoritative pronouncement settling this question, it is necessary for me to set out in detail some of the provisions of the Act as they stood before the Amending Act and as they now stand. Since some of the provisions of the Act after its amendment are not very happily worded, a clue to their correct interpretation can be found from an historical analysis of the scheme of the Act.

4. Chapter XVI of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act has been divided into various groups of sections:

(1) Sections 135 to 180 deal with judicial procedure in matters cognizable by the Deputy Commissioner;

(2) Sections 181 to 198