I propose to dispose of the two civil revisions as they involve common questions of law touching the jurisdiction of the appellate Court to hear appeals arising out of an order under Section 47, Civil P.C. passed on or after 1-2-1977.

2The petitioners are Judgement-Debtors. Dulal Chandra Deb Barma instituted Title Suit No. 10 of 1956 and obtained a decree. The Judgement-Debtors preferred abortive appeals. No further appeal was taken. The decree-holder plaintiffs took preliminary steps for preparation of the decrees, after their preparations execution proceedings were started. On registration of the Execution Cases notices were issued on the Judgement-Debtors who appeared and filed separate sets of objections under Section 47 of the Civil P. C. As such two Misc. Cases stemmed before Shri B.K. Bhattacharjee, Subordinate Judge, Tripura West at Agartala : (1) Civil Misc. Case No. 24 of 1974 (connected with Civil Revision No. 2 of, 1978) and (2) Misc. Case No. 26 of 1975 (connected with Civil Revision No. 3 of 1978). The objections of the petitioners were heard by the learned Subordinate Judge who by a common order dated 29-4-1977 held that the execution of the decrees could not be proceeded with and allowed the Misc. Cases.

3. Decree-holder Dulal Deb Barma filed two Misc. Appeals being Misc. Appeals Nos. 7 and 8 of 1977 before the Addl. District Judge, Agartala as appeals against the original decrees. They were heard analogously as the appeals arose out of a common judgement. One of the grounds taken was that no appeal lay against the orders passed in proceedings under Section 47 of the Civil P.C. as the appellants had no right to prefer an appeal against the orders dated 29-4-1977 passed under Section 47, Civil P. C. in view of the provisions contained in Section 97(2)(a) read with Section 3 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 for short "the Amendment Act". Section 3 of "the Amendment Act" amends the definition of the term "decree" as contained in Section 2 (2) of the Principal Act by deletion of the words and figures "Section 47 or". As such on and from 1-2-1977, the date of enforcement of the Amendment Act, Section 2 (2) of the Civil P. C. stands repealed and determination of any question within Section 47 is not a decree. Section 97(2)(a) of the Amendment Act reads as follows :-

"97. Repeal and savings-

(1) ** ** **

(2) Notwithstanding that the provisions of this Act have come into force or the repeal under Sub-Section (I) has taken effect, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of S.6 of the General Clauses Act 1897,--

(a) the amendment made to clause (2) of Section 2 of the principal Act by Section 3 of this Act shall not affect any appeal against the determination of any such question as is referred to in S.47 and every such appeal shall be dealt with as if the said Section 3 had not come into force;

* * * * * *"

4. Therefore, in view of the amendment made in the Civil P.C. in amending Section 2 (1)(a) and the provisions of repeal and savings contained in Chapter V, Section 97 of the Amendment Act, it was urged before the appellate Court that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeals. The appellate Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain and dispose the appeals in view of the provisions contained in Section 99-A as introduced by Section 96 of "the Amendment Act."

5. Whenever there is a repeal of an enactment the consequences laid down in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act will follow unless a different intention appears in the repealing statute. The principles of Section 6 are that unless a different intention appears in the repealing Act, any legal proceeding can be instituted and continued in respect of any matter pending under the repealed Act as if that Act was in force at the time of the repeal. The question that is to be asked is