JUDGMENT

1. This is a revision application under Section 115, Civil P.C. The case arises out of an application under Section 12, Agriculturists' Belief Act. The trial Court passed a decree for redemption and also a decree for repayment of a large sum of money to the applicants by the opposite parties. In first appeal, some modifications were made in the decree and the case was remanded for settling accounts in accordance with certain directions given in the appellate Court judgment. The decree of the trial Court as regards overpayments by the applicants was maintained with some modification, and it is against this decree based on overpayments that the present revision has been filed. The grounds are:

(1) That the lower Courts had no jurisdiction to pass a decree in favour of the mortgagors in respect of the alleged overpayments.

(2) That the lower appellate Court has acted illegally and has taken an erroneous view of law in disallowing interest or mesne profits for the period the mortgagees were out of possession.

2. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of remand and the order in respect of the alleged overpayments should be set aside. The second ground has not been argued before us but only the first. The applicants learned Counsel argues that Order 34, Rule 9, Civil P.C., does not apply to Section 12, Agriculturists' Belief Act. Order 34, Rule 9 refers to accounts taken under Rule 7, and the argument is that a decree for overpayments can, therefore, only be passed under this rule when the accounts have been taken under Rule 7. The Agriculturists' Belief Act, however, provides its own procedure for taking accounts, when an application is made under Section 12; hence the accounting is done under Section 16, Agriculturists' Belief Act. Neither this section nor any other section in the Agriculturists' Belief Act says anything about a decree for overpayments in favour of the applicants. The applicants' learned Counsel argues that if there have been overpayments, the mortgagors-applicants should bring a separate suit in the ordinary course for the recovery of such sum. In our opinion the proposition of law here put forward is so anomalous that it could only be accepted for most cogent reasons. On the one hand, we find a Court which, according to the applicants, though it is entitled to go into the accounts to find out what is due, has the power only to make a decree for money in favour of the opposite party, but cannot, if it finds money due to the applicants, make a decree in their favour. We scarcely think that the Legislature could have intended to give the Court this one-sided jurisdiction. We do not wish to express any opinion about the maintainability of the separate suit suggested. Supposing that it would be maintainable, it would involve a multiplicity of suits where the whole work could equally well be done by one Court. The object of the Agriculturists' Belief Act in this matter seems to be to cut down lengthy proceedings. This seems to be the main object of Sections 12 to 27. It would, therefore, be most anomalous if the result of this were that a separate suit had to be brought for overpayments. Section 25 states that no suit shall be brought in any Court for any relief which can be obtained by an application under this chapter. It is arguable, therefore, that an agriculturist who could obtain relief under Section 12 would not be able to bring a suit under the Transfer of Property Act so as to obtain] return of overpayments. This would be another' anomaly in the law.

3. Section 27 of the Act says that the provisions in the Civil Procedure Code, 5 of 1908, in regard to suits shall be followed, so far as they can be made applicable, to all proceedings under this chapter. This would seem to bring in the whole of Order 34 and make it applicable. We see no reason why Rule 9 should not be applied to an inquiry which is analogous to an inquiry under Rule 7 as well as to an inquiry which is actually under Rule 7. The whole m