ORDER Mulla, J.
1. This is an application in revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., which arises in the following circumstances. The applicant, Narain Das, entered into a contract which has been described as satta, with two persons, namely Gur Dayal Singh and Nathu Singh. Under that contract, Gur Dayal Singh and Nathu Singh agreed to supply a certain quantity of rab to the applicant at a certain price agreed upon between the parties. The applicant paid a sum of Rs. 800 to them as the price of the goods that were to be supplied to him. Gur Dayal Singh and Nathu Singh failed to carry out their part of the contract whereupon the applicant brought a suit to recover the sum of Rs. 800 which he had paid them in the above mentioned circumstances and also a certain amount as damages for breach of contract. The suit ended in a decree for the applicant which was put into execution against Gur Dayal Singh and Nathu Singh. Gur Dayal Singh diod during the pendency of the execution proceeding and his widow, Mt. Badha Kuar, was brought on the record as his representative. She and Nathu Singh are the opposite parties in this case. She made an application to the execution Court in which she prayed that the decree passed in favour of the applicant should be converted into an instalment decree under Section 5, Agriculturists' Belief Act. The learned Munsif who had to deal with that application was of the opinion that the provisions of Section 5, Agriculturists' Belief Act, could not apply to the decree under execution because it was not a decree based upon a loan or upon any transaction which was in substance a loan. In his judgment he has given elaborate reasons for being of that opinion. It appears that in a previous case of thesame character the District Judge had held in appeal that the words any decree for money used in Section 5, Agriculturists' Belief Vet, wore wide enough to include a decree for money of any kind, whether it was based upon a transaction of loan or not. The earned Munsif against his own conviction felt himself bound to follow the decision of the learned District Judge, and hence he proceeded to convert the decree in question into an instalment decree under Section 5, Agriculturists' Belief Act. Hence the present application in revision.
2. The simple argument on behalf of the applicant is that Section 5, Agriculturists' Belief Act was inapplicable to the decree in question inasmuch as the decree was not based upon any loan or any transaction which was in substance a loan. It is contended that the order passed by the learned Munsif converting the decree into an instalment decree is consequently without jurisdiction. Reliance is placed in support of this contention on the decision of this Court in the Full Bench case in Shah Chaturbhuj v. Shah Mauji Ram (1938) 25 A.I.R. All. 456. In that case, the learned Judges had to consider the applicability of the provisions of Section 5, U.P. Agriculturists' Belief Act, to a decree for damages for malicious prosecution, and it was held that the words 'any decree for money' in Section 5(1), Agriculturists' Belief Act, mean only a decree passed on the basis of loan as defined by Section 2(10)(a), and does not include a decree for damages for malicious prosecution, as a decree for damages is not a decree with respect to a loan.
3. The simple question for consideration in the present case therefore is whether a decree for recovery of damages for breach of contract can be distinguished in any essential particular from a decree for damages for malicious prosecution so as to allow room for the argument that the Full Bench case does not apply. I think the answer must be in the negative. It cannot possibly be urged that the amount of Rs. 800 which was paid by the applicant to Gur Dayal Singh and Nathu Singh was a loan within the meaning of Section 2(10)(a), Agriculturists' Belief Act, and so far as damage for breach of contract are concerned, it cannot be reasonably suggested that any decree for such damages should be deemed to be a decree based upon a loan or upon a transaction which is in substance a loan. I have therefore no doubt that the present case is fully covered by the decision in the Full Bench case referred to above. The result therefore is that I allow this application in revision and set aside the order passed by the Court below converting the decree in question into an instalment decree under Section 5, Agriculturists' Belief Act. The applicant shall have his costs in this Court.