AGARWALA J.:- This is a judgment-debtors appeal arising out of execution proceedings. A decree for possession over a house and for arrears of rent was passed against the judgment-debtor appellant. The decree-holder applied for the execution of the decree and obtained possession over the house. After having obtained possession, the decree-holder found that some materials of the house had been removed and damage had been done to it after the passing of the decree.

He then applied to the execution court for compensation to be awarded against the judgment-debtor appellant to the extent of Rs.10,000/-. The application was made under S.47, Civil P.C. The judgment-debtor objected that such an application did not lie under S.47, Civil P.C., and that if at all, the decree-holder could file a separate suit to obtain the relief claimed by him.

The learned Munsif held that an application did lie under S.47, Civil P.C. but, because the application was of a high valuation, he directed that the application be converted into a plaint and then presented for trial to the proper court. The decree-holder appealed against this order to the lower appellate court on the ground that in the circumstances of the case the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to order the conversion of the application into a plaint and that he should have entertained the application and tried it himself.

The lower appellate court held that the application under S.47, Civil P.C. was entertainable by the learned Munsif and that he was in error in ordering that it be converted into a plaint. A preliminary objection was also raised before the lower appellate court against the order of the Munsif. That was also decided by it against the appellant. The lower appellate court, therefore, allowed the appeal and directed the Munsif to proceed with the execution application according to law. Against this order the judgment-debtor has come up in appeal to this Court.

2. Three points have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal. Firstly, it has been contended that the order of the Munsif directing the conversion of the execution application into a plaint was not appealable to the court below. This objection has no force. The learned Munsif, though holding that the execution application was maintainable, in effect refused to execute the decree by ordering that the execution application be converted into a plaint.

The refusal to execute a decree is a question relating to the execution, discharged or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of S.47, Civil P.C. As defined in sub-s. (2) of S.2, Civil P.C., such an order is a decree. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of the Madras High Court in - Ramanuja v. Soliappa, AIR 1931 Mad 270 (A).

It was held in that case that no appeal lies from an order merely allowing the conversion of an execution petition into a suit as permitted by S.47(2). Though the order was passed under S.47 it was not one relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. The facts of that case were different from the facts of the present case.

There both the parties agreed that the execution application did not lie in respect of a particular relief. The first court refused to exercise the discretion vested in it for converting the execution application qua the relief which was not entertainable under S.47, Civil P.C., into a plaint. In these circumstances, it was observed that no appeal Say from such an order.

The Madras case was, therefore, purely one in which the exercise of the discretion under sub-s. (2) of S.47 was in question in the appeal.

In the present case what the learned Munsif did was that after holding that the execution application did lie to him, ordered the execution application to be converted into a plaint. In substance his order amounted to a refusal to execute the decree.

The appeal, therefore, by the decree-holder to the lower appellate court was really against an order refusing