JUDGMENT V. Bhargava, J. - This case was instituted in this Court as a revision application u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Subsequently learned Counsel for the applicant made an application to this Court praying that it be converted into a first appeal from order. The prayer for conversion was granted but the case was fixed for hearing on the question whether this case should be registered as a regular first appeal from a decree or from an order having the force of a decree or as a first appeal from an order. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, learned Counsel for the opposite-party and learned Junior Standing Counsel. In addition we had the benefit of arguments by Mr. K.C. Saxena, learned Counsel for the Appellants in the first appeal filed by Bohare Uttam Chand and others against Haji Mohammad Habibul Hasan on 20-2-1956 against an order in another case. The facts of the two cases are very similar and the same question arises in the latter case also. For the sake of convenience, however, we shall only refer to the facts of this case, i.e., Civil Revision No. 1438 of 1955. 2. Opposite-party No. 1 Raja Kishori Raman Singh of Mursan Estate, Aligarh had filed an application u/s 4 of the EE Act. He was indebted to only one creditor viz., Messrs. Nand Ram Chhotey Lal, Belanganj, Agra. This revision has been filed by the latter. In the proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act properties liable to attachment and sale in lieu of debt of the opposite-party No. 1 were declared and subsequently a decree was passed u/s 14 of the EE Act in favour of the applicant in respect of the said debt. Opposite-party No. 2 is the Collector of Aligarh who was in-charge of the estate of opposite-party No. 1 while it was under the management of Court of Wards. Opposite-party No. 2 is no longer interested in this proceeding. The decree which was passed u/s 14 of the EE Act was transmitted u/s 19 to the Collector for liquidation of debt together with a list of property liable to attachment and sale for realizing the amount of the decree. Before the liquidation proceedings could be completed by the Collector, the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act (U. P. Act No. XV of 1953) came into force. Before the liquidation proceedings could be completed by the Collector, the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act (U. P. Act No. XV of 1953) came into force. Further the UPEE Act was amended by the UPEE Amendment Act XIII of 1954. As a result, the applicant (in this revision) moved an application u/s 4(1) of the U.P. Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act for action being taken under that provision of law. When this application came up for hearing, it appears that the applicant did not press the application but the court proceeded to deal with it and to pass orders on it in accordance with Section 4 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act. The final order u/s 4 of the said Act was passed on 12-11-55.) The present revision was filed against that order. The preliminary question that has arisen before us, is whether an appeal lies at all against that order, and if so, whether the appeal should be treated as a first appeal from order or as a regular first appeal from a decree or an order having the force of a decree. If an appeal does not lie, the further question that would arise is whether a revision can lie from such in order Notice of this case was also given to the learned Junior Standing Counsel as the decision of this question affected the amount of court fee leviable in this proceeding. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that neither a first appeal from order nor a regular first appeal can be entertained against this order. We are further of the opinion that, if a party does not choose to come in revision against such an order, the right that accrues to the party for approaching the High Court is by way of a regular appeal from the amended decree which comes into existence u/s 19A, of the UP EE Act as introduced by the Amending Act of 1954. We now proceed to give our reasons for this view. 3. The main circumstance that has led us to the view expressed above is that the Legislature, while enacting the provisions of Section 4 of the Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act and while introducing Section 19A in the EE Act, has envisaged that there would be two separate and independent proceedings. We now proceed to give our reasons for this view. 3. The main circumstance that has led us to the view expressed above is that the Legislature, while enacting the provisions of Section 4 of the Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act and while introducing Section 19A in the EE Act, has envisaged that there would be two separate and independent proceedings. Under the Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act, an application is to be moved before the court which passed the decree and the proceedings under that section are taken by the court in that capacity by virtue of the jurisdiction specially conferred on it by that provision of law. The procedure to be followed by the court u/s 4 which culminates in an order reducing the amount due under the decree has been laid down in that section. There is to be a further order apportioning the reduced amount where the mortgaged property consists partly of estate and partly of property other than estate. The proceedings before the court which passed the decree then come to an end. The provision contained in Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act applies to decrees irrespective of the court by which they may have been passed. They may be decrees under the CPC or may be decrees under the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief or decrees by a Special Judge under the UP EE Act. The court, which passed the decree shall complete its proceeding on the application presented u/s 4 by passing an order of reduction and of apportionment as mentioned above. Subsequently the court is not required to take any further action. The effect of the order made u/s 4 on the rights of parties is governed by Section 7 of the U.P. Zamindari Debt Reduction Act. Under that provision of law when the amount has been reduced in accordance with the provision of Section 4, the decree, to the extent of the reduction so effected, is to be deemed for all purposes and on all occasions to have been duly satisfied. This is the general provision that lays down how the order of reduction u/s 7 is to be given effect to. This is the general provision that lays down how the order of reduction u/s 7 is to be given effect to. It appears to us that the language of Section 7 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act indicates that on an order of reduction having been passed u/s 4, the original decree, in respect of which the amount has been reduced, continues to remain in existence as a whole but a part of it is deemed to be satisfied. The final result of reduction is achieved not by wiping out the original decree and substituting an amended decree but by recording satisfaction of apart on it. The original decree therefore, remains an effective decree. The fact that the legislature lays down that satisfaction of part of the original decree is to be recorded itself presumes that the integrity of the original decree is not broken. On the other hand, amendment of a decree sweeps away or supercedes altogether the original decree and brings into existence a new one. This is therefore, not a case of amendment of original decree, but merely a satisfaction of the same. 4. In case where the decree happens to be a decree u/s 14 of the Encumbered Estates Act the Legislature has made a special and different provision. That provision has been made u/s 19(A) of the Encumbered Estates Act as introduced by the Amending Act of 1954 which reads as follows: Section 19(a) U.P. Code, Vol V, pp. 214-215. Where a decree has been passed by the Special Judge before the commencement of the UP Encumbered Estates (Amendment) Act 1954 and the decree not having been already fully satisfied is in respect of a secured debt to which the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act, 1952 applies, the Special Judge shall, upon reduction of the amount of the debt in accordance with the provisions of the said Act,-- (a) inform the Collector of the reduction so made; and (b) certify the amount, if any, of the decree aforesaid which is not legally recoverable otherwise than out of the compensation and rehabilitation grant payable to the landlord in respect of the mortgaged estate; and the decree transmitted to the Collector u/s 19 shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly. 5. 5. This provision makes it clear that upon reduction of the amount of the debt in accordance with the provision of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act the Special Judge is required to inform the Collector of the reduction that was made by him and also to certify the amount if any, of the decree which is not legally recoverable otherwise than out of the compensation and rehabilitation grant payable to the applicant, and when this has been done the decree already passed u/s 14 of the UPEE Act and transmitted to the Collector has to be deemed to be amended accordingly. 6. The language of the new Section 19-A of the UPEE Act does not lay down that, as a result of the reduction of the amount in accordance with Section 4 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act, part of the decree should be deemed to be satisfied as is the case with other decrees on which the effect of Section 4 would be governed by Section 7 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act. In the case of decrees under the UPEE Act, Section 19-A of the UPEE Act, makes a special provision, the provision being to the effect that the Special Judge has, upon reduction of the amount of the debt u/s 4 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act, to inform the Collector of the reduction so made and to certify the amount not legally recoverable otherwise than out of compensation and rehabilitation grant. When this has been done, the decree, which had already been transmitted to the Collector u/s 19 of the UPEE Act, is to be deemed to have been amended in accordance with the information given and the certificate sent by the Special Judge to the Collector. When this has been done, the decree, which had already been transmitted to the Collector u/s 19 of the UPEE Act, is to be deemed to have been amended in accordance with the information given and the certificate sent by the Special Judge to the Collector. It is to be noted that, in Section 19-A, the words "upon reduction of the amount of the debt in accordance with the provisions of the said Act" have been put between the words "the Special Judge shah" and the words "inform the Collector of the reduction so made and certify the amount...." The language used in the section clearly indicates that, upon reduction of the amount of debt u/s 5 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act by the court which passed the decree, the Special Judge has to take the action of informing the Collector of the reduction and of certifying the amount not legally recoverable except out of the compensation and rehabilitation grant and it is after the Special Judge, who passed the decree, has given this information to the Collector that the decree transmitted to the Collector u/s 19 has to be deemed to be amended accordingly. The amendment of the decree does not take effect automatically upon reduction of the amount u/s 4 of the UP Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act but it takes effect u/s 19-A of the UPEE Act only when the Special Judge has, upon reduction of the debt, given information to the Collector of the reduction made by him. The words "upon reduction of the amount of the debt in accordance with the provisions of the said Act" have been so placed in this section that they govern the clause relating to the provision requiring the Special Judge to give the requisite information to the Collector. They do not automatically govern the provision relating to the decree being deemed to have been amended. This special provision in respect of the decree passed u/s 14 of the EE Act and transmitted to the Collector differs from the provisions made with regard to all other decrees u/s 7 of the UP Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act on tire question of the effect of the reduction made u/s 4 of that Act. This special provision in respect of the decree passed u/s 14 of the EE Act and transmitted to the Collector differs from the provisions made with regard to all other decrees u/s 7 of the UP Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act on tire question of the effect of the reduction made u/s 4 of that Act. Decrees other than those covered by Section 19-A of the UPEE Act remain in existence intact though a part of the decrees has to be deemed to be satisfied. On the other hand, decrees u/s 14 of the UPEE Act, which have been transmitted to the Collector u/s 19, are substituted automatically by amended decrees in accordance with the information sent to the Collector about the reduction and in accordance with the certificate relating to the amount not legally recoverable except out of the compensation and rehabilitation grant. There thus appears to be an apparent conflict between the effect of reduction of debt u/s 4 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act on decrees governed by Section 19-A of the UPEE Act and on other decrees which are not covered by the provisions of the UPEE Act which would be affected as laid down in Section 7 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act. It is also clear that the provision made in Section 7 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Acts a general provision for all decrees passed on the basis of mortgages whereas Section 19-A of the UPEE Act is a special provision which only governs decrees passed u/s 14 of the UPEE Act which have been transmitted to the Collector u/s 19 of that Act. In resolving this conflict between these two provisions of law, we have to follow the principle underlying the maxim (sic) non derogant. The special provision u/s 19-A of the UPEE Act in respect of decrees mentioned therein will prevail in preference to the general provision made in respect of decrees in general u/s 7 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act. The case before us is one where the reduction affects a decree passed. u/s 14 of the UPEE Act which had already been transmitted to the Collector. In. The case before us is one where the reduction affects a decree passed. u/s 14 of the UPEE Act which had already been transmitted to the Collector. In. this case, therefore, upon reduction of the debt u/s 4 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act and upon its communication to the Collector by the Special Judge u/s 19-A of the UPEE Act, a new amended decree is to be deemed to have come into existence. There would thus be a replacement of the old decree by a new one. The new decree would come into existence not by an amendment by the court but by affiction of law under which the decree is to be deemed to have been amended when action u/s 19-A of the UPEE Act has been taken by the Special Judge in accordance with the provision of that section. An examination of the two above mentioned provisions of law makes it clear that so far as decrees under the UPEE Act are concerned, the Legislature has envisaged two separate and distinct proceedings. The first proceeding is by the court which passed the decree. It is taken u/s 4 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act by virtue of the special jurisdiction conferred by that provision of law. Those proceedings are taken before that court and an order is passed under that provision of law reducing the amount of debt and making other incidental orders as required by it. Once these proceedings have terminated, then no further action is required to be taken by that court exercising jurisdiction under the UP Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act. Thereafter, a new proceeding starts in which the Special Judge has to take action in accordance with the provisions laid down u/s 19-A of the UPEE Act. This proceeding is, therefore, a proceeding in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on the Special Judge by the UPEE Act and the proceeding consists in informing the Collector of the reduction and transmitting a certificate to the effect mentioned above. After the Special Judge has taken that proceeding, the result of the proceeding automatically is that the original decree transmitted to the Collector becomes non-existent and in place of it is substituted an amended decree which gives effect to the reduction which has been made by the court which passed the decree in accordance with Section 4 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act. 7. 7. It was urged before us by learned Counsel for the apposite party that both the proceedings should be held to be one single proceeding carried out by the Special Judge exercising jurisdiction under the UPEE Act and that the view that there were two separate proceedings should not be accepted on the ground that the first proceeding u/s 4 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act is taken only for the purpose of the decree being amended subsequently in accordance with Section 19-A of the UPEE Act. While not accepting this submission, we have to say that we have already emphasised that the action, which is taken by the court u/s 4 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act, is in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on that court by that Act whereas the further proceeding that is taken u/s 19-A of the EE Act is in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by the UPEE Act. The two jurisdictions are separate and distinct even though the court happens to be the same. We cannot overlook the possibility that, if the Legislature had so chosen, it might have assigned the function of reducing the amount not to the court which passed the decree but to some other court, e.g., the District Judge. If this had been done, the proceeding under the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act would have been before a court different from the court which functioned as a Special Judge under the UPEE Act. In that case, there could hardly have been any doubt about the separate and distinct nature of the two jurisdictions. The mere fact that the Legislature happened to nominate the same court for exercising the two jurisdictions cannot have the effect of converting what are obviously two distinct and separate proceedings into one. In this connection, it is significant to note that, u/s 4 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act, the court is required not merely to record a finding as to the amount of reduction to which a party may be entitled but is also required to actually reduce the amount. The language of the section shows that the court is required to passed an order and not merely to record a finding. (An order passed by the court u/s 4 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act would result in the final termination of the proceeding under that provision of law. The language of the section shows that the court is required to passed an order and not merely to record a finding. (An order passed by the court u/s 4 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act would result in the final termination of the proceeding under that provision of law. That order would, therefore, amount to an order ay which a case has been decided within the meaning of this expression as used in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Subsequently, the decision given by the court u/s 4 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act is to be the basis of further proceedings u/s 19-A of the UPEE Act. It is true that, to initiate these further proceedings u/s 19-A, it is not necessary that any party should make a fresh application before the Special Judge. The Legislature has cast on the court itself the duty of sending the information to the Collector and of certifying the amount not legally recoverable except out of the compensation and rehabilitation grant. It is not always essential that a new proceeding must start on an application by a party, as contended by learned Counsel for the opposite-party. The Legislature may, for starting a fresh proceeding, cast a duty on the court requiring it to act suo motu. In the case before us, the entire proceedings before the court, exercising jurisdiction u/s 4 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act, terminated. Thereafter a new proceeding had to be started by the Special Judge u/s 19-A of the UPEE Act in compliance with the mandatory direction contained therein. Once this action is taken by the Special Judge, the old decree is superceded and a fresh decree, which is really an amended decree, comes into existence. In these circumstances, it seems to us that parties aggrieved by the orders passed have two alternative remedies. One remedy is that they can file a revision against the order of reduction made by the court which passed the decree in the proceeding u/s 4 of the UP Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act which terminated with that order. If they choose to file a revision, they would, of course, have to show that the order is liable to be revised by this Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If they choose to file a revision, they would, of course, have to show that the order is liable to be revised by this Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The other remedy is to file an appeal against the amended decree which, u/s 19-A of the UPEE Act, comes into existence and replaces the original decree. In the latter case, of course, parties would have the right to urge grounds that can be taken in an appeal. If the former remedy is chosen, the ambit is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. In the case filed by Dr. Asthana, he chose to move this Court u/s 115 of the CPC and to rely on questions of jurisdiction which, according to him, would justify interference by this Court u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This case must, therefore, be treated as a civil revision u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We are, of course, not expressing any opinion at this stage whether the revision does or 'does not raise such questions as would justify the court in interfering u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Dr. Asthana moved the application for the amendment of his revision application so as to convert it into a first appeal from order only as a result of certain observations made by this Court when the case came up for hearing on an earlier date. To day Dr. Asthana has made a request that his application for conversion of the revision into an appeal may be treated as withdrawn. We accede to this request.. This case will accordingly remain registered as a revision. We have also considered the question whether we should direct issue of notice in respect of this application for revision. It has been brought to our notice by learned Counsel for the opposite party that, when this revision came up before a Single Judge, no direction was made for issue of notice in view of the valuation of the subject matter involved. In these circumstances, we would have been inclined to direct issue of fresh notice to day but there is the fact that notice has already been served on the opposite-party and the opposite party has put in appearance through counsel. 9. In these circumstances, we would have been inclined to direct issue of fresh notice to day but there is the fact that notice has already been served on the opposite-party and the opposite party has put in appearance through counsel. 9. The revision is, therefore, treated to be an admitted revision in which the opposite-party has already put in appearance through counsel and it shall now be listed for hearing in the ordinary course.