Mr. Shashi Nindan, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised very interesting questions in the present case, namely : -

(1) Whether a suit for possession claimed in terms of the condition of delivery of possession contained in mortgage deed without seeking relief of foreclosure comes within the purview of Order XXXIV requiring passing for preliminary decree and then drawing up a final decree and whether such decree can be held inexecutable before final decree is passed in an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) after the decree is satisfied by delivery of possession.

(2) Whether such a decree can be negatived by reasons of Sections 4 and 5 of the U. P. Debt Relief Act, 1977 and the possession already delivered could be restored to the judge ment debtor.

2. The brief facts relating to the present case are summarised as follows :

3. Pursuant to a mortgage dated 3-9-1975 for a period of five years containing a clause for delivery of possession a suit was filed in 1981. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 18-1-1992. Application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the decree was rejected. There