( 1 ) THESE two applications in revision have been heard together as they arise out of execution proceedings in respect of the same decree. Application No. 5 of 1949, came up for hearing before a learned Judge of this Court who found that the question involved was of some importance and doubted the soundness of the decision of a Division Bench in -- durga Baksh singh v. Umanath Baksh Singh, AIR 1944 Oudh 90 (A ). He, therefore, directed that the application may be placed before a Full Bench for hearing. The other application for revision, no. 180 of 1951, was also subsequently ordered to be put up along with revision application No. 5 of 1949.

( 2 ) ONE Mulhay obtained a decree under Section 183 of the U. P. Tenancy Act against Mathura and others on 11-9-1946. As Mathura was in doubt as to whether an appeal lay to the commissioner or to the District Judge he instituted two appeals -- one in the Court of the commissioner and another in the Court of the District Judge.

( 3 ) BOTH these were dismissed. The appeal to the Commissioner was dismissed on 14-4-1947, on the ground that no appeal lay to him while the appeal instituted in the Court of the District Judge was dismissed on merits. An appeal against this appellate order of the District Judge is now pending in this Court.

( 4 ) AN application for execution of the decree was made by the decree-holder on 28-4-1947. In this application it was mentioned that there had been an appeal to the Court of the Commissioner which had been dismissed. Execution was, however, stayed by the District Judge in view of the appeal pending before him, and it appears that this application was subsequently consigned to the record room and there was an end of it.

( 5 ) THE second application for execution was made on 19-4-1948, in the Revenue Court. The revenue Court ordered execution to issue on 2-6-1948, holding, that, since the judgment-debtors appeal had been decided by the District Judge on 9-8-1947, the decree had become final. Apparently he was not aware that a further appeal had been filed in the Chief court which is still pending. Dissatisfied with this order the judgment-debtor went in appeal to the District Judge. The appeal was transferred to the Civil Judge, Sitapur, before whom it was agreed that a second appeal was pending in this Court. He felt, therefore, that the question whether the application for execution was premature required determination. He accordingly set aside the order of the Revenue Court and remanded the case with the direction that an issue should be framed to try that question and the Revenue Court should then proceed to determine it according to law.

( 6 ) THE Revenue Court passed an order on 30-3-1950, staying execution on the ground that the execution was premature. An appeal was then instituted in the Court of the District Judge and was heard by a Civil Judge. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeal and held that the order of the Assistant Collector holding that the application was premature was correct. The decree-holder has now come up in revision and his revision is No. 180 of 1951.

( 7 ) A third application for execution was made by the decree-holder on 9-6-1943. He seems to have ignored the earlier application for execution made by him on 19-4-1948. It was mentioned in this application that the appeal to the Commissioner had been dismissed and the decree-holder was therefore entitled to put his decree into execution. Objection was taken to the execution by the judgment-debtor on the ground that the application for execution was premature and this objection was decided by the Assistant Collector on 31-12-1948. He held that possession could not be given as the decree was in appeal. The order of the Assistant Collector is very briefly worded and all that can be inferred from it is that he held that the execution of the decree at that stage was premature in view of the fact that it was still then in appeal. An appeal was then instituted aga