Revision under Agriculturists' Relief Act upheld, but instalment relief confined to loan-based money decrees, not tort damages.

Section 115 CPC revision was held to lie against orders made under Section 5(1) of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934, because the court acting under that provision remained a subordinate civil court and statutory finality barred only further appeal, not revision. An application to convert a money decree into an instalment decree had to be made to the court of first instance, or the court to which its business had been transferred, since Section 5(1) and Section 5(2) contemplated that forum and Section 37 CPC did not govern. The phrase "any decree for money" was confined to decrees arising from loans or transactions in substance amounting to loans, so a decree for damages for false and malicious prosecution was outside Section 5 and could not be converted into instalments.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in relation to orders passed under Section 5(1) of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934; (ii) whether an application for conversion of a money decree into an instalment decree under Section 5(1) had to be made to the court of first instance or to the court that passed the ultimate appellate decree; (iii) whether the words "any decree for money" in Section 5 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934 extended to a decree for damages for false and malicious prosecution.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in relation to orders passed under Section 5(1) of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934

Analysis: The revisional power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 extends to cases decided by subordinate civil courts. The court exercising power under Section 5 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934 is a civil court within the meaning of the Act and remains subordinate to the High Court. The absence of a right of appeal to the decree-holder and the statement that the appellate decision shall be final were held not to exclude revision, since finality in that context meant only finality as against further appeal.

Conclusion: The High Court's revisional jurisdiction was not barred, and the preliminary objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether an application for conversion of a money decree into an instalment decree under Section 5(1) had to be made to the court of first instance or to the court that passed the ultimate appellate decree

Analysis: Although the decree of the trial court merges in the decree of the appellate court for purposes of execution, the structure of Section 5(1) and Section 5(2) showed that the Legislature contemplated the court of first instance as the proper forum. If the ultimate appellate court were treated as the relevant court, anomalous results would follow, including the absence of an effective appellate forum in some cases. Section 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was distinguished because an application under Section 5(1) is not an application in relation to execution.

Conclusion: The proper court to entertain an application under Section 5(1) was the court of first instance or the court to which its business had been transferred.

Issue (iii): Whether the words "any decree for money" in Section 5 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934 extended to a decree for damages for false and malicious prosecution

Analysis: The phrase "any decree for money" was construed in the light of the scheme and object of the Act, especially Sections 3 and 8. Section 3 dealt with principal and interest on loans, and Section 8 linked the relief to the status of an agriculturist at the time of the advance of the loan and the suit. Reading these provisions together, the Act was held to concern decrees arising out of loans or transactions in substance amounting to loans, not tort-based damages decrees. A decree for damages for false and malicious prosecution was neither a loan decree nor a transaction in substance a loan.

Conclusion: A decree for damages for false and malicious prosecution was not a decree for money within Section 5, so the applications for instalment conversion could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The orders converting the decrees into instalment decrees were set aside, the applications under Section 5(1) were rejected, and the revisions succeeded with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Relief under Section 5 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1934 is confined to money decrees arising out of loans or transactions in substance amounting to loans, and the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not excluded merely because the Act provides a limited appeal with finality of the appellate decision.

---