JUDGMENT

Raghubar Dayal, J. - This is a J.D.'s appeal against the order of the Ct. below disallowing his claim about the non-saleability of certain land in, view of Section 17, U. P, Debt redemption Act.

2. The facts leading to this appeal briefly are? that Baghubir Gir & Chunni Gir brothers executed a simple mtge. bond for Rs. 2,100 in favour of Badam Gir and ors. In 1938 the heirs of Ghunni Gir transferred their share of the equity of redemption in the mortgaged property to Baghubir Gir & left Rs. 1,300 out of the sale considerations with the vendee for paying off the vendor's share of the mtge. debt. The mtgee. got the decree for sale against Eaghubir Gir only. In execution of this decree Badam Gir and ors. D.Hs. sought the sale of half the mortgaged property which Eaghubir Gir had purchased from the heirs of Chunni Gir & of the houses of Eaghubir Gir in the Abadi. They also sought the execution of a usufructuary mtge. for 20 years, in accordance with the term of the U. P. Debt Redemption Act, with respect, to half the mortgaged property which was owned by Raghubir Gir from before the sale to him by the heirs of Chunni Gir. The J.D., Raghubir Gir claimed protection from sale with respect to the property he had purchased from the heirs of Chunni Gir & also with respect to the houses. The trial Ct. rejected his objection & allowed the execution to proceed in the manner sought by the D.H. Raghubir Gir appealed & the learned. Addl. Civil Judge dismissed the appeal with respect to the property he had purchased & allowed it with respect to the abadi by his order, dated 1-6-1945. It is against this order that Raghubir Gir filed this second appeal.

3. The D.Hs. filed a review appln. before the, learned Addl. Civil Judge with respect to the dispute about the abadi. The learned Addl. Civil Judge reviewed his order & ordered the sale of he site of the abadi. Against this order Raghubir Gir has filed first appeal from order. No. 191 of 1946.

4. The first appeal has no force on merits. The abadi land does not come within the definition of the word, 'land,' in Section 2, Sub-section (8), U. P. Debt Redemption Act which is :

" 'Land' means land in a mahal in the U. P. but does met include land occupied by buildings or appurtenant thereto. . . .."

It is, however, contended that no ground for review, as contemplated by Order 47, Rule 1, C. P. C., existed & that, therefore, the Ct. below could not have reviewed its previous order. We are of opinion that the ground for review can be refd. to that part of Order 47, Rule. 1, .... C. P. C , which allows a review for any other suffieient reason. It is obvious that there was an error in the original order of the learned Addl. Civil Judge which appears to have been passed with pointed attention towards the question of saleability of the houses as such without any particular attention to the question of the saleability of the site. The error can be said to be analogous to the error apparent on the face of the record. It was held in Narain Das v. Chiranji Lal 23 A. L. J. 56 at p. 58:

"In our opinion, the words "for any other sufficient reason" in Order 47, Rule 1, are not only very wide in themselves, but were intentionally so made by the Legislature, tiacauae of the possibility of exceptional cases arising in which obvious injustice would be worked by strict adherence to the terms of the decree as originally passed. We are not prepared to hold that the Ct. below was outside its jurisdiction in passing the order now under appeal."

We, therefore, consider that the Ct. below rightly viewed its previous order & ordered that the site of the abadi was saleable.

5. The main point for determination in the second appeal centres round the interpretation of the definition of the word, loan", in Section 2, Sub-section (9), U. P. Debt Redemption Act which is :

" 'Loan' means an advance in cash or kind made before 1-6-1940, recoverable from an agriculturist or a workman or from any such person and ors persons jointly or fr