JUDGMENT Misra and Madeley, JJ. - This is defendants' application in revision against the appellate order of the learned District Judge, Lucknow. 2. In 1833 Mst. Deoka had made a mortgage of certain property Mata Din and delivered posses -ion thereof in lieu of interest. The plaintiffs Ram Dayal and Parmeshwar Din are the; representatives of the mortgagor, while-". the defendants Matt Din and On Singh are the representatives the mortgagee. On 18th October, 194r Ram Dayal and Parmeshwar Din "applied for redemption u/s 12 of the Agriculturists' relief Act, and they sought the benefits of the U.P. Debt Redemption Act in calculating (he amount of mortgage money. They claimed that if interest was calculated in accordance with (he latter Act, no amount was payable towards the principal and interest. The defendants resisted the suit on a number of grounds which need not be mentioned for the purposes of this judgment. It is sufficient to say that all the defences were overruled, and the learned Assistant Collector ordered delivery of possession on the mortgaged property to Ram Dayal and Parmeshwar Din holding that nothing was due to the mortgagees. When the matters reached the lower appellate Court at the instance of the defendants, Ram Dayal and Parmeshwar Din who were respondents, raised a further point that they were entitled to a decrepit respect of the excess amount realised by the mortgagee and his successors during the period of their possession. This contention was advanced in view of a Bench decision of this Court reported in Raja Ram v. Mushtaq Husain 1942 OA 237 : AWR (CC) 216 : OWN 345, wherein it was held that if a creditor had been overpaid, a decree for refund of the overpayment was competent under the provisions of Chapter III of the Agriculturists' Relief Act. The learned District Judge following the afore- said decision passed a decree in favour of Ram Dayal and Parmeshwar Din for a sum of Rs. 600. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the defendants have come up by way of revision. 3. The case has been referred to a Bench of this Court by our brother, Gbulam Hasan, J. as it raised some important questions of law. 4. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application u/s 115 has been raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite-parties. 3. The case has been referred to a Bench of this Court by our brother, Gbulam Hasan, J. as it raised some important questions of law. 4. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application u/s 115 has been raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite-parties. It is urged that the utmost that in be said on behalf of the applicants is that the decision of the lower Court is wrong on a question of law, and there being no defect of jurisdiction as contemplated by Section 115 the application does not lie This argument, in our opinion, is unsound. The case, as put forward on behalf of the applicants, is that in applying the provisions of the Agriculturists' Relief Act and the U P. Debt Redemption Act the Court below acted in excess of its jurisdiction in passing a decree for refund of the excess amount realised by the mortgagee and his successors during the period of their occupation. We think that the preliminary objection has no force. It accordingly fails. The main controversy centers round the question whether in applying the provision-; of the U.P. Debt Redemption Act, the Court is empowered to order refund of the excess received by the mortgagee. Section 9 of the U.P. Debt Redemption Act clearly provides that nothing in that section entitles the debtor to a refund of any sum already paid by him. It appears to us that Section 9 only entitles the debtor to have th.3 interest re- calculated and the amount which is due against him determined. If as a result of this accounting it is discovered that the creditor has realised more than what he would be entitled to the basis of the rate of interest allowed under the Act, no claim for refund would bi permissible- In face of this clear prohibition it is not possible to conceive of any inherent power to pass a decree in favour of the debtor for any sum realizable by him from the mortgages. The provisions of the CPC are, by virtue of Section 24, applicable to proceedings under the U.P. Debt Redemption Act in so far only as they are not inconsistent with that Act. The provisions of the CPC are, by virtue of Section 24, applicable to proceedings under the U.P. Debt Redemption Act in so far only as they are not inconsistent with that Act. Order 34, rule 9 which lays down that where the mortgagee has been over- paid, the Court may pass a decree directing him to pay to the mortgagor the amount which my be found due to him is obviously not in accord with clause (4) of Section 9. In Raja Ram v. Mustaq Husain, which has been relied upon by the learned District Judge this Court was concerned with Agriculturists' Relief Act alone, the provisions whereof did not militate against the applicability of Rule 9 of Order 34 C. P. C. In fact Section 27 of that Act rendered in obligatory that the CPC should be followed so far as it could be made applicable to proceedings under Chapter III, and there was nothing in the Agriculturists' Relief Act which disentitled a Court from passing a decree in favour of the mortgagor for overpayments. The position has been considerably altered under the U. P, Debt Redemption Act. If an agriculturist chooses to take advantage of the reduced interest under that Act tie must forfeit his right to obtain a decree for overpayment. If he does not choose to do so, (and un- like the Agriculturists' Relief Act, there is nothing to compel an agriculturist to apply under the Debt Redemption Act) interest will have to be calculated in accordance with the rates laid down in the Agriculturists' Relief Act. If on calculations passed thereon it is focus that there is still some overpayment, he can get a decree against the mortgagee. In our opinion the position is clear, and in the present case Ram Dayal and Parmeshwar Din can not be granted a decree for refund. 5. It is urged, however, on behalf of the opposite parties that Section 9 draws a distinction between the case of overpayments and the case of over-realisation of profits. It is pointed out that clause 4 refers only to overpayments and not to over-realizations. The suggestion is that the latter class of cases is left out of the prohibition contained in the clause. It is pointed out that clause 4 refers only to overpayments and not to over-realizations. The suggestion is that the latter class of cases is left out of the prohibition contained in the clause. Clause 1 embraces two kinds of transactions : (I) where possession is with the mortgagor and payments are made by him to the mortgagee from time to time and (2) where the possession is with this mortgagee, and the payment of interest is made by realisation of the profits of the property. Far from drawing a distinction between the two it deals with both on the same footing. So far as the prohibition u/s 4 is concerned, we see no essential difference between cases of over-payments and over-realizations. On the contrary the realizations of profits by the mortgagee are conceived of as payments to the - creditor in lieu of interest or in lieu partly of" interest and partly of principal and are credited towards the discharge of the mortgagors' liability. 6. In our opinion the decision of the Court. below entitling Ram Dayal and Rarmesh-I war Din to obtain refund was without | jurisdiction. 7. We accordingly allow the application, set aside the decree of the Court below and restore that of the trial Court. The applicants will get their costs of the lower Court as well as of this Court from the opposite-parties. Application allowed.