Orders passed by the executing court under Section 151 of the CPC restoring execution proceedings are not appealable under Section 47 or Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the CPC.

, J.

1. The facts giving rise to Civil Revision Applications Nos. 607 and 608 which I am disposing of by this judgment are these. The Deddahoor Co-operative Agricultural Service Society, which figures as the respondent in each of them and is hereinafter referred to as the Society, obtained two decrees, one for Rs. 6,237.24 against Kikar Singh, the petitioner in Civil Revision Application No. 607 of 1972, and the other for Rs. 3,848.05 against Pawittar Singh (son of the said Kikar Singh) who has filed the other application. Execution was taken out by the Society against both its judgment-debtors through Shri Shivdarshan Kumar, Advocate, Barnala who, on the 18th of July, 1970, volunteered a statement in each of the two execution proceedings that the decree sought to be executed therein had been fully satisfied. In pursuance of the statements both the application were dismissed "in full satisfaction". On the 13th of August, 1970, Shri Shivdarshan Kumar, Advocate, made tow separate applications for restoration of the execution proceedings on the ground that his statements dated the 18th of July, 1970, were erroneous and had been made on information imparted to him by some "unauthorised person". The judgment-debtors resisted the applications on the following grounds:

(a) The Court had no jurisdiction to revive execution proceedings and the applications were, therefore, not maintainable in law.

(b) Baldev Singh, Secretary of the Society, owed a debt of Rs. 9,300/- to Kikar Singh, judgment-debtor. The two of them arrived at a settlement that Baldev Singh would have the decretal amounts adjusted against the debt owed by him and have the execution proceedings filed in full satisfaction of the two decrees. It was in pursuance of that settlement that Baldev Singh actually instructed the counsel for the Society to have the execution proceedings filed for the reason that the decrees had been satisfied in full.

The Executing Court allowed the parties opportunity to produce their evidence in relation to the matters in controversy. On behalf of the Society only certified copies of the statements of Shri Shivdarshan Kumar dated the 18th of July, 1970, and the orders passed by the Court on that date were produced before its case was closed. No evidence was led by the judgment-debtors. Exercising its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure the executing Court accepted both the applications and restored the two execution proceedings after giving a finding that the statements made by Shri Shivdarshan Kumar on the 18th of July, 1970, were shown to be factually incorrect and that the justice of the case was on the side of the Society. The order of the executing Court in each of the two cases is dated the 1st of April, 1971. Each of the two judgment-debtors filed an appeal which was dismissed by Shri Nirpinder Singh, Additional District Judge, Barnala on the 19th of April, 1972, holding-

(a) that an order under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not appealable in view of the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Keshardeo V/s. Radha Kishen, AIR 1953 SC 23,

(b) that the order under appeal could not be regarded as one having been made under Section 47 or Rule 1 of Order XI. VII of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(c) that the Executing Court could exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure even in cases where other provisions of the Code were applicable.

(d) that Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure had no application to the facts of the case, and

(e) that there had been no satisfaction of the decree passed in favour of the Society.

These civil revision applications have been filed by the two judgment-debtors against the orders dated the 1st of April, 1971, made by the Executing Court as also those passed on the 19th of April 1972, by the learned Additional District Judge.

2. Mr. Nehra has raised a preliminary objection that both the civil rev