An application for execution of an order passed u/s. 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967, which is deemed to be a decree under S. 15 of the Act, is governed by Art. 136 of the Limitation Act, which applies to applications for execution of decrees.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- This appeal has been preferred against the order passed in Misc. Appeal No. 13/3/2 of 1975/76/77 confirming an order dated 23-6-75 passed by the Munsif, Sambalpur in Misc Case No. 19/75, which is a proceeding u/s. 47, C. P. C. arising out of the Execution Case No. 34/72. The respondent in this appeal filed that Execution Case for the execution of the order passed in H. R. C. Case No. 32/62. The appellant herein opposed the execution of the said order end on that objection Misc. Case No. 19/75 was registered. The executing court, however, dismissed the said objection. Being aggrieved by the Said order the appellant preferred Misc. Appeal No. 13/3/2 of 1975/76/77 before the District Judge, Sambalpur on 4-7-75. The said appeal also was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Sambalpur. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the said appellate order.

2. Mr. Jain, the learned counsel for the respondent, at the outset challenged the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that by the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure In the year 1976, orders passed u/s. 47, C.P.C. would not be deemed to be decree under the Civil Procedure Code, and so the appellant could not prefer this appeal against the order of the court below determining a question u/S. 47, C.P.C. The said contention was advanced without noticing the provisions of S. 97 (2) of the Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 1976 (Act 104 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act ), and S. 6 of the General Clauses Act (Central) (Act X of 1897), Cl. (a) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 97 of the Amendment Act provides as follows:-

"97. (1) xx xx xx xx

(2) Notwithstanding that the provisions of this Act have come into force or the repeal under, sub-sec. (1) 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 S. 2 of the principal Act by, S. 3 of the 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 S. 3 had not come into force;" From the above quoted provision in the Amendment Act it is quite evident that even in spite of the amendment made to the definition of the word "decree" in clause (2) of S. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, this appeal is maintainable against the order of the court below determining a question u/s. 47 of the Code.

Apart from the said provision in the Amendment Act, S. 6 (c) of the General Clauses Act (Central) (Act X of 1897) provides as follows:-

"6. Effect of repeal-Where this Act, or any (Central Act) or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not-

(a) xx xx xx

(b) xx xx xx

(c) Affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed

or

(d) xx xx xx

(e) xx xx xx

xx xx xx xx"

The provisions of S. 6 (c) of the General Clauses Act ate not in any way affected, rather the said provisions are protected by S. 97 (2) of the Amendment Act. Unidisputedly the appellant s appeal in the court below was maintainable as at that time the Amendment Act had not been enacted. The appellant had a right of appeal against the order passed in the said appeal determining a question u/s. 47, C. P.C, agitated before that court. That right of appeal is not affected by the coming into force of the Amendment Act, as is evident from the provisions of S. 97 (2) (a) of the Amendment Act and S. 6 of the General Clauses Act. Accordingly, this appeal is maintainable. Therefore, the above-mentioned, preliminary objection is overruled.

3. The only ground on which the execution of the final order passed in H. R. C. case No. 32/62 is opposed is that the said application for execution is barred by limitation as it was presented beyond the time prescribed under the Limita