JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been preferred as an execution of decree appeal under Sections 47 and 96 read with Rule 1, Clause (w) of Order 48, Civil P.C. It is directed against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge of Bahraich on 28th March 1941, whereby he set aside a stay order passed by him in execution proceedings on 20th January 1941. He held that he was competent to do this in exercise of his powers of review under Order 47. The application in execution was filed by Raja Bajrang Bahadur Singh Taluqdar of Gangwal. He held a decree for costs arising out of a title suit which was decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court as far back as 4th January 1927. The decree which he passed was the subject of an appeal to a Bench of this Court and the case went thereafter on appeal from the decision of the Bench to His Majesty in Council. The case was remitted to this Court with certain directions and from the decision of this Court after the remand order (reported in Harihar Pratab v. Bisheshwar Baksh, A.I.R. 1933 Oud 197 dated 19th December 1982, there was a further appeal to His Majesty in Council which was decided on 31st May 1937 (reported in Harihar Pratab Bakhsh Singh v. Bajrang Bahadur Singh, A.I.R. 1937 P.O. 242. Earlier judgments in the case, Lal Harihar Partap Bakhsh Singh v. Bisheshwar Bakhsh Singh, are reported in Harihar Pratab Bakhsh Singh v. Bisheshwar Bakhsh Singh, A.I.R. 1928 Oudh Jadunath Kuer v. Bisheshwar Bakhsh Singh, A.I.R. 1931 P.O. 24 and Jadunath Kuar v. Bisheshwar Bakhsh Singh, A.I.R. 1932 P.O. 142 The original plaintiff, Raja Bisheshwar Bakhsh Singh, is now represented by his sons, Raja Bajrang Bahadur Singh and Bhaiya Dhuj Singh. The plaintiff was awarded costs by this Court and by the Privy Council, and it is these costs which are the subject of the present appeal.

2. The application for execution of the decree in respect of costs is dated 23rd February 1940. It shows four judgment-debtors, Dulhin Jadunath Kuer, Lal Harihar Partap Bakhsh Singh, Thakur Mahabir Singh and Raja Bir Inder Bikram Singh of Payagpur. The application was however against the Raja of Payagpur only. The Raja of Payagpur objected firstly that one-half of the decree for costs had been satisfied by payment to Bhaiya Dhuj Singh, the brother of the applicant, Raja Bajrang Bahadur Singh. Secondly, he objected that as he had been made a party in the appellate Court no execution should be taken out against him in respect of the costs of the original Court. Thirdly he objected that as one of the judgment-debtors, Lal Harihar Partap Bakhsh Singh, had made an application under the Encumbered Estates Act which was still pending (i.e., on 30th November 1940) and the decree-holders had made no claim against him in those proceedings, the debt should be deemed discharged under Section 18 of that Act. Even if it had not been extinguished, no execution, he contended, could be taken out against any of the judgment-debtors during the proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act. The execution application shows a sum of Rs. 7044-0-9 as the costs awarded in the first appeal, that is the appeal in the Chief Court, and a sum of Rs. 4511-13-0 as the costs awarded in the Privy Council appeal, which with Rs. 5-4-0, costs of execution, make a total of Rupees 11,564-1-9 claimed.

3. We find that in its judgment of 19th December 1932, this Court ordered that the defendants-appellants should pay the plaintiff's costs in the trial Court, in the appeal before the Chief Court on the previous occasion, and also the plaintiff's costs before their Lordships of the Judicial Committee, and his costs at the re-hearing of the appeal by the Chief Court. Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in their final judgment dismissed the appeal of the defend ants-appellants with costs. The orders passed by the Civil Judge on 20th January 1941 and 28th March 1941, relate to the last objection. By the first order he stayed execution proceedings in view of the provisions of