ORDER : 1. On 3-9-1955, the applicant (who is a decree-holder) filed an execution in the court of District Judge, Gwalior (Execution Case No. 28 of 1955) and on 6-9-1955 also filed an application under S. 46, Civil P.C. for the issue of a precept to District Judge, Morena, where tire property of the judgment-debtor was alleged to be. The Court issued the precept on 7-9-1955 and notice to show cause against execution was also issued to the judgment-debtor, who appeared and said that he had paid Rs. 1,200 to the decree-holder on 17-8-1955 and that in view of this payment, the. decree-holder had allowed him one year's time verbally. The judgment-debtor also objected to the issue of the precept on the ground that the Court had issued it on insufficient grounds. In the course of these proceedings, the decree-holder applied to the Court for the extension of the period of the precept by six months, within which the decree-holder thought that the pending proceedings would be over. The learned District Judge had before him an affidavit of the decree-holder about the precept, which said that on hearing that execution proceedings are being taken against him, the judgment-debtor might transfer his property and also a counter-affidavit of the judgment-debtor, which said that lie possessed property worth 2 or 3 lacs, implying thereby that the fear of the decree-holder was groundless. The learned District Judge considered both the affidavits and since the decree-holder did not file a counter-affidavit nor cross-examined the judgment-debtor on his affidavit, the Court thought fit not to extend the time of the precept. In fact the order of the Court suggests that it recalled its order of the issue of the precept. Aggrieved by this order, the decree-holder has filed this revision. 2. The preliminary objection is that since the order under revision refers to the execution and satisfaction of the decree, it must be treated to be one under S. 47, Civil P.C., and hence appealable. In the circumstances no revision lies. 3. Mr. Bhagwandas Gupta learned counsel for the applicant says that an application for the issue of a precept is not an application for execution and he relies upon- 'Kasiwar De v. Aswini Kumar'. 1926 Cal 249 (AIR V 13) (A). In the circumstances no revision lies. 3. Mr. Bhagwandas Gupta learned counsel for the applicant says that an application for the issue of a precept is not an application for execution and he relies upon- 'Kasiwar De v. Aswini Kumar'. 1926 Cal 249 (AIR V 13) (A). In the Calcutta case, the point for consideration was whether an application for an attachment under S. 46 of the Code could be regarded as an application for execution, so as to enable the applicant to participate in rateable distribution. With great respect to the opinion of the learned judges of the Calcutta High Court, I would respectfully point out that the heading of Part II, Civil P.C., in which S. 46 occurs is 'Execution'. The object of S. 46 is to enable the decree-holder to obtain an interim attachment when it is apprehended that he would be otherwise deprived of the fruits of his decree. Can it, in these circumstances, be said that an application for the issue of a precept under S. 46 does not relate to a question which arises between the parties to the suit and which relates to the execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree ? Besides this, the Calcutta case can be distinguished on the ground that it did not consider whether an appeal from an order under S. 46 lay or not. It merely considered the question whether a person who had moved the Court under S. 46. Civil P.C., was entitled to participate in rateable distribution or not ? It may also be said that a dispute arising between the decree-holders inter se so as to who is and who is not entitled to rateable distribution cannot be said to be a question which arises between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor because the judgment-debtor has to do nothing with it and therefore an order passed in such proceedings cannot be said to relate to a question arising between the parties to a suit. 4. For reasons stated above, I think the preliminary objection must prevail and holding that an order under S. 46 of the Code is appealable under S. 47, I dismiss the revision. Parties shall bear their own costs of this revision. Application dismissed.