JUDGMENT Bajpai, J.
1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P.C. asking for the revision of an order passed by the Civil Judge of Agra, dated 6th February 1937. The opposite party, Ranbir Prasad, had obtained decree No. 31 of 1932 against the applicant Chaudhari Sheo Baran Singh. On 12th December 1936, Sheo Baran Singh applied in the Court of the Civil Judge of Agra under Section 30, Agriculturists' Belief Act for reduction in the amount of interest calculated in the above mentioned decree. The application was opposed by Ranbir Prasad and has been dismissed by the Court below. The ground for the dismissal was that a similar application had been rejected by that very Court on 15th August 1936 and that as the decree-holder, clearly and unmistakably stated that his decree had already been satisfied and did not subsist any longer there remained nothing for the Court to amend.
2. Both these grounds are assailed by Chaudhari Sheo Baran Singh before us. It is necessary at this stage to state a few facts. The decree in question was transferred to the Collector for execution and there proceedings started under the United Provinces Regulation of Sales Act, Act 26 of 1934. After certain preliminary proceedings the Collector on 22nd August 1935 passed an order under Section 5. The order obviously must have been for the transfer of certain agricultural land of the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder. Soon after this the judgment-debtor made an application under Section 4, United Provinces Encumbered Estates Act No. 25 of 1934. On 2nd September 1935, the Collector passed an order under Section 6 of the Act forwarding the application of the landlord to the Special Judge. On the passing of such an order certain consequences ensued under Section 7 of the Act and the landlord, namely Ranbir Prasad applied to the Court, where the matter under the Regulation of Sales Act was pending to stay further proceedings, but somehow or other the Court does not seem to have stayed its hands. Under Rule 8(a) of the Rules framed under the U.P. Regulation of Sales Act a stamped and registered sale deed was actually drawn up in favour of the decree-holder on 18th March 1936, and on 21st March 1936 an order was made for the delivery of possession of the land conveyed to the decree-holder. Various steps were taken by the judgment-debtor Sheo Baran Singh for redress in the shape of appeals and revisions to the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. Finally, by an order dated 27th November 1936, the Board of Revenue set aside the order of the Assistant Collector, dated 18th March 1936, or the execution and registration of the sale deed and the subsequent order dated 21st March 1936 for placing the decree-holder in actual possession of the property transferred in satisfaction of the decree. It was however provided that the order under Section 5 will stand and it will be the duty of the Collector to give effect to that order of 22nd August 1936 as soon as he receives the case back from the Special Judge under Section 19, Encumbered Estates Act, subject of course to any orders that may be passed in the interim by the Special Judge.
3. The position therefore is that the decree-holder is in error when he says that his decree has been satisfied and the Court below is also in error in accepting the mere statement of the decree-holder on the question. The judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 27th November 1936 was before the Court and a perusal of the same would have made it clear that although the order of the Collector dated 22nd August 1935 ordering the transfer of agricultural land to the decree-holder stood, all further proceedings, namely the execution of the sale deed and the delivery of possession, had been quashed, and it is impossible under those circumstances to hold that the decree had been satisfied. The Court below holding that the decree had been satisfied, refused to amend the decree under Section 30, Agriculturists' Relief Act and in so doing has refused to exercise a jurisdiction vested in the Court by law.
4. It is then contended by the opposite party that an order having been passed by the Collector under Section 6, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act on an application under Section 4 of the Act, no proceedings shall be instituted in any Civil or Revenue Court in the United Provinces in respect of any debts incurred before the passing of an order under Section 6 by reason of the provisions of Section 7(b) of the Act. It is said that an application for the reduction of interest under Section 30, Agriculturists' Relief Act is such a proceeding and is not maintainable. We hold the view that proceedings, attachments, processes and suits mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 7, Encumbered Estates Act are proceedings, attachments, processes and suits against the landlord in respect of debts and the landlord himself is not necessarily under any disability for taking proceedings which he may be entitled to take under the law for the protection of his interest. We think therefore there is no force in the contention of the decree-holder that the application under Section 30, Agriculturists' Relief Act was incompetent and was liable to be dismissed.
5. It is then said that the present application under the Agriculturists' Relief Act was barred by res judicata. The Court below seems inclined to hold that it is so barred. It is obvious that Section 11, Civil P.C., does not in terms apply to the present proceeding, but the principles underlying that section have been invoked in other proceedings and are invoked by the opposite party before us. An application similar to the one dated 12th December 1936 was presented by Sheo Baran Singh before the Court below and was rejected on 15th August 1936 by an order which said that the decree having been satisfied by transfer of property in favour of the decree-holder the application was no longer entertain, able. From what we have said before, it is clear that up to 15th August 1936 the sale deed dated 18th March 1936 in favour of the decree, holder and the order directing delivery of possession dated 21st March 1936 stood, and it was only on 27th Nov. ember 1936 that the Board of Revenue set aside the sale deed and the order directing delivery of possession. A fresh situation has arisen because of the order of the Board of Revenue and the principle of estoppel by judgment, which is what is really pleaded by the opposite party, does not apply to the applicant, because the entire force of the order dated 15th August 1936 has been taken away by the order of the Board of Revenue. We are therefore of the opinion that this revision should be allowed. We allow the application, set aside the order of the Court below and direct that Court to reinstate the application of Sheo Baran Singh dated 12th December 1936 and to dispose of it according to law. The applicant is entitled to the costs of this revision.