Second appeal bar, decree appealability, and judgment in rem principles govern execution objections under company arrangement law.

A suit of a nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, even if not tried by that court, attracted the statutory bar to a second appeal. A determination under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was treated as a decree and was therefore appealable. No illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error was shown to justify revision. An arrangement sanctioned under Section 153 of the Indian Companies Act bound the creditor as a judgment in rem, and the objection based on it could be raised in execution proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a second appeal lay against the order in question under Section 42(2) of the Punjab Courts Act; (ii) whether the order of the trial court was appealable as a decree under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and (iii) whether any illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error justified interference in revision, including the plea based on Section 153 of the Indian Companies Act.

Issue (i): whether a second appeal lay against the order in question under Section 42(2) of the Punjab Courts Act.

Analysis: The suit, though not tried by a Court of Small Causes, was of a nature cognizable by such a court and the claim was for Rs. 450. On that footing, the statutory bar against a second appeal applied.

Conclusion: A second appeal was barred.

Issue (ii): whether the order of the trial court was appealable as a decree under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The order determined a question falling within Section 47 and was therefore treated as a decree for purposes of appealability.

Conclusion: The order was appealable as a decree.

Issue (iii): whether any illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error justified interference in revision, including the plea based on Section 153 of the Indian Companies Act.

Analysis: No illegality or material irregularity was shown in the subordinate judge's decision, and no failure to exercise jurisdiction was made out. The arrangement under Section 153 of the Indian Companies Act bound the creditor, and the objection could be raised in execution proceedings because the order under that provision operated as a judgment in rem.

Conclusion: No ground for revision interference was made out, and the plea under Section 153 could be raised in execution proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding failed on maintainability and on the merits of revisional interference, with the result that the challenge to the order did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a suit of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes falls within the statutory bar, a second appeal is not maintainable; a determination under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is appealable as a decree; and an arrangement sanctioned under Section 153 of the Indian Companies Act binds the creditor as a judgment in rem and may be relied upon in execution proceedings.

---