JUDGMENT

Ziaul Hasan, J - This is an application under Section 115, Civil P.C., by a judgment-debtor against an appellate order of the learned District Judge of Gonda dismissing his appeal against an order of the Additional Civil Judge of Gonda by which his application under Sections 5 and 30, Agriculturists' Relief Act, was rejected. The present application came on for hearing before a Bench of this Court when a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the opposite party to the effect that no revision lay against the appellate order of the District Judge. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the case in Nihal Singh v. Ganesh Dass Ram Gopal (1937) 24 AIR Oudh 124 As the learned Judges constituting the Bench thought that this decision was in conflict with the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Shah Chaturbhuj v. Shah Mauji Ram (1938) 25 AIR All 456 and as it was desirable that the Act should be administered uniformly in the whole of the United Provinces, they referred this application to a Full Bench under Section 14 1), Oudh Courts Act. In Nihal Singh v. Ganesh Dass Ram Gopal (1937) 24 AIR Oudh 124 the late Chief Judge, Sir Bisheshwar Nath Srivastava, and I held that the provision contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 5, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, which makes the decision of the Appellate Court final, not only debars a further appeal against it but also prevents interference with it in revision so that no revision lies against an order of the District Judge refusing instalments under Section 5 of the Act. I have again considered this decision in the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of the present applicant but I am unable to hold that the law was not correctly laid down in that case.

2. In the case before us instalments had been refused to the applicant by the learned Additional Civil Judge on the ground that the decree against the applicant could not be said to have been passed for any money advanced by way of a loan within the meaning of the Agriculturists Relief Act. The judgment-debtor appealed to the District Judge, but the District Judge also agreed with the opinion of the learned Additional Civil Judge and refused to grant instalments. The case therefore falls strictly within Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act, and is fully governed by our decision in Nihal Singh v. Ganesh Dass Ram Gopal (1937) 24 AIR Oudh 124. The facts of the case in Shah Chaturbhuj v. Shah Mauji Ram (1938) 25 AIR All 456 were totally different in that a decree had been converted into an instalment decree by the Court which passed it and the revision application was brought against this order by the decree-holder. The Allahabad High Court therefore had not to consider in that case the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 though the preliminary objection to the hearing of the application in that Court was based on the concluding portion of that sub-section. Our decision in Nihal Singh v. Ganesh Dass Ram Gopal (1937) 24 AIR Oudh 124 was not discussed nor did the learned Judges consider Sections 23 and 30(3), Agriculturists' Relief Act. Section 23 runs as follows:

(1) An appeal shall lie to the District Judge from an order of a Collector or Assistant Collector passed under this chapter. An appeal shall lie from the order of a Civil Court passed under this chapter to the Court to which original decrees passed by such Courts are ordinarily appealable and where such decrees are appealable no more Courts thai one, to the Court of lowest jurisdiction.

(2) No appeal shall lie from an appellate order passed under this Section.

3. Similarly Section 30(3) provides that

a decree amended in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) shall be deemed to bear the date of the original decree, and, notwithstanding any provision in any law to the contrary, no appeal shall lie from any order 'amending a decree under that sub-section.

4. The language of Sub-section (2) to Section 5 being quite differe