Abdur Rahman, J.

1. The question that we have been. invited to decide in these revisions is one of jurisdiction. These revisions came up for decision once before and Pandrang Row, J., and one of us then took the view following another case decided by the same Bench (for which see Jami Venkatappudu v. Kannapalii Ramamurthi AIR1940Mad131 that the Subordinate Judges Court at Berhampore would continue to have, even after the Government of India (Constitution of Orissa) Order, 1936, had come into force, jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the applications made by the judgment-debtor under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (IV of 1938). This conclusion was arrived at as the proceedings on these applications were then regarded, on account of the words " or enter satisfaction " contained in Section 19 of that Act, to relate to " discharge or satisfaction of the decree" used in Section 47, Civil Procedure Code. In that view the revision petitions were accepted on the 12th August, 1940 and the petitions were remanded to the Subordinate Judge of Berhampore for disposal according to law.

2. It was discovered by the petitioners shortly after, that one of the decree-holders (respon