Order passed u/s 47 C.P.C. is not a decree.

Raju, J.

1. The above appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 7.12.1982 made in A.S.No.87 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai whereunder the lower appellate Court set aside the order of the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai dated 26.9.1981 made in E.P.No.281 of 1980 in O.S. No.34 of 1979 and remanded the matter to the trial Court for disposal afresh in the light of the observations made by the lower appellate Court.

2. The appellants before this Court were the plaintiffs and in the suit filed by them, a preliminary decree was passed for redemption of an usufructuary mortgage in favour of the respondent. A final decree was also passed. Consequently, the appellants filed E.P.No.281 of 1980 on 2.7.1980 praying for delivery of possession of the property after assessing the value of improvements, if any, made in terms of the final decree. After contest, the trial Court held that the respondent has not produced any records to show that he has made improvements and that he was not entitled to anything towards the claim for improvement Therefore, the petition for delivery was ordered.

3. As against this, the respondent herein preferred an appeal in A.S. No.87 of 1982 before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court, by its judgment and decree dated 7.12.1982, felt that the commission warrant issued by the trial Court originally had to be reissued to assess the value of improvements in the light of the observations made by the lower appellate Court. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the order of the trial Court was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal. As against this, the appellants have filed the above appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(a), C.P.C.

4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Counsel for the appellants, even before going into the contentions on merits, submitted that the appeal before the lower appellate Court was not maintainable having regard to the amendment introduced to Section 2(2), C.P.C. by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976 which rendered an order under Section 47, C.P.C. passed in execution proceedings not to be a decree. It was also contended that inspite of the fact that the point was specifically raised, the same was not considered by the lower appellate Court. In support of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the decisions reported in Visalakshi v. Muthiah Chettiar , Doraiswamy v. Premchand, Narmada Devi v. Ram Nandan Singh . and Jayalakshmi Ammal v. Barathe Gounder 1978 T.L.N.J. 220 were referred to. On the" other hand, in meeting the said submission, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent referred to the decision reported in Parashava Properties Limited v. A.K. Bose and Sundaresan v. Ramachandra and Company 1981 T.L.N.J. 176 and contended that since the matter involved adjudication of rights of parties, the appeal before the lower appellate Court was maintainable notwithstanding the amendment introduced by the Amendment Act 104 of 1976.

5. After careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side and after considering the authorities placed in support of their contentions, I am of the view that the appeal before the lower appellate Court filed by the respondent herein was not maintainable. The authorities referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellants are squarely on the point and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondent has to be referred only for being rejected. The decision of the Patna High Court in Parshava Properties Limited v. A.K. Bose referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent was specifically considered and overruled in the Full Bench Judgment in Narmada Devi v. Ram Nandan Singh. So far as the decision reported in Sundaresan v. Ramachandra and Company 1984 T.L.N.J. 176 is concerned, Ratnam, J. sustained the plea of the appellants in that case in favour of an appeal on the interpretation of Se