JUDGMENT Mathur and Sinha, JJ. - The facts which have given rise to this application in revision by the creditor are briefly these: A declaratory decree u/s 33 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act was passed and it was held that on the 15th of August, 1936 a sum of Rs. 8,767-15-3 was due from the debtor. Thereafter the judgment debtor made an application u/s 4 of the Encumbered Estates Act (Local Act No. XXV of 1934). While those proceedings were still pending, he made an application u/s 8 of the U. P. Debt Redemption Act (XIII of 1940). The decree-holder took exception to the right of the debtor to take advantage of the U. P. Debt Redemption Act during the pendency of the proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act. The learned Civil Judge has repelled the contention, given the debtor the benefit of the Debt Redemption Act and has granted an amendment of the decree. He has declared that a sum of Rs. 7,600 was due on the 15th of August, 1936 instead of the original sum of Rs. 8,767-15-3. 2. The creditor has come in revision before us u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Prodedure. Mr. Pathak, the learned Counsel for the applicant argues that once the debt has invoked the aid of the Encumbered Estates Act it is not open to him, during the pendency of the proceedings under that Act, to invoke the aid of another Act. He has relied on Lal Girjesh Bahadur Pal v. Bhagwati Prasad 1911 AWR (Rev) 1203: 1942 ALJ 173. We think that this contention must be accepted. Section 7 (I) (a) of the Encumbered Estates Act provides:- "All proceedings pending at the date of the said order in any Civil or Revenue Court in the United Provinces in respect of any public or private debt to which the landlord is subject, or with which his immovable property is encumbered except ... no fresh process in execution shall ... be issued." 3. Clause (b) of the same section provides: No fresh suit or other proceedings other than an appeal, review or revision against a decree or order, or a process for ejectment for arrears of rent shall, except as hereinafter provided, be instituted in any Civil or Revenue Court in the United Provinces in respect of any debts.... 4. be issued." 3. Clause (b) of the same section provides: No fresh suit or other proceedings other than an appeal, review or revision against a decree or order, or a process for ejectment for arrears of rent shall, except as hereinafter provided, be instituted in any Civil or Revenue Court in the United Provinces in respect of any debts.... 4. It is thus clear that the application of the debtor under the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act was a bar to any further steps under the Debt Redemption Act. The point has further been made clear by a recent decision of this Court in Sulaiman v, Ahmad Uddin Khan 1943 S L R 83: ALW 206. 5. Dr. Rauf tries to meet this difficulty by relying upon the case of Agha Syed Ayub Ali Shah v. Kali Charan 1941 AWR (Rev) 960. That was a different case. That case is an authority for the proposition that once the proceedings under one Act are exhausted there is no bar to further proceedings being initiated under another Act. This is not a case of successive steps. This is a case of simutaneous steps being taken for obviously the same relief. 6. The result, therefore, is that this revision succeeds. The effect of our order is that the proceedings under the U. P. Debt Redemption Act shall remain stayed. Under the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.