Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The learned Subordinate Judge has set aside various orders on the ground that they were passed without jurisdiction. We understand that the Question has since again been raised in this very suit before the same Judge and that he has come to a different conclusion in view of certain recent decisions of this Court. We are, however, not concerned with this. There is an obvious point in this case to which unfortunately his attention was not drawn. If the decree in question was a preliminary decree the subsequent proceedings now impeached would be merely proceedings in the suit. If, on the other hand, the decree was final, they would be proceedings in execution. It is not seriously disputed that the Court which heard the applications and made the orders which are said to be invalid was a Court which had jurisdiction to execute the decree. The question therefore, that has to be decided is, was the decree, dated 12th January 1916 in O.S. No. 4 of 1913 preliminary or final? It contains a direction that the defendants shall deliver to the plaintiff possession of the property. Mesne profits to the date of suit are fixed at Rs. 13,912-9-10 and thus there is no i