JUDGMENT J.K. Tandon, J. - These are two appeals arising out of the same order passed on appeal by the learned District Judge, Rae Bareli dated the 24th May, 1954. In both the appeals firm Mattoo Lal Baldeo Prasad is the appellant and Srimati Shanti Devi, as widow of The Udai Bhan Singh is the respondent. 2. The facts are as under:- 3. The appellants have a decree for money against the estate of Udai Bhan Singh in the hands of his widow which had been obtained on the foot of a promissory note executed by the deceased. The decree holder-appellants executed the above decree by proceeding against the interim compensation granted under the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act to the respondent in respect of certain zamindaris belonging to her and acquired under the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. There was some difficulty in deciding whether the execution application, out of which the present appeals have arisen was directed against the entire compensation inclusive of the interim compensation, awarded to the respondent under the said Act, but Sri N. Banerji appearing for the appellant has stated that the execution in point was against the interim compensation only. It is in this context therefore that the two appeals will need to be decided. 4. Under Rule 47 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules interim compensation is made payable in cash. It is not clear from the record whether the interim compensation which the decree-holder appellants had asked to be paid over to them was in fact so made over to them though the learned Counsel for the respondent has informed that this amount along with the rest of the compensation was realised by the respondent in the form of bonds from the Compensation Officer. Whatever the correct position may be the fact with which we are concerned in these appeals remained that the decree-holder's execution was against the interim compensation which was payable in cash. They had not asked the bonds in respect of compensation to be attached or sold. 5. Whatever the correct position may be the fact with which we are concerned in these appeals remained that the decree-holder's execution was against the interim compensation which was payable in cash. They had not asked the bonds in respect of compensation to be attached or sold. 5. Sec. 9 of the U.P. Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act, 1952, has made provision that where a decree to which that Act applied for other than a secured debt is executed by attachment and sale of the bond granted to the judgment debtor on account of compensation or rehabilitation grant for his estate, the Court executing the decree shall enter satisfaction in accordance with the formula given in Schedule II of that Act. The lower appellate Court has in view of the provision in the above section requiring satisfaction to be entered in accordance with the formula given in Schedule II, directed the executing Court to institute an inquiry and enter satisfaction of the decree in accordance with the formula in the Schedule. The appellants are contesting this order on the ground that Sec. 9 under which the learned District Judge has made the direction is not attracted in the case of interim compensation which is payable in cash. It is applicable to those cases only where the decree-holder wants to execute his decree by attachment and sale of the bonds granted to the judgment debtor on account of compensation or rehabilitation grant. 6. Sec. 9 has used the words "where a decree to which this Act applies relating to other than a secured debt is executed by attachment and sale of the bonds granted to the judgment-debtor on account of compensation or rehabilitation grant for his estate." Its provisions are thus attracted when execution is sought by attachment and sale of the bonds granted to the judgment debtor on account of compensation or rehabilitation grant. Interim compensation is payable in cash. Moreover, the section on its plain language is applicable to cases where execution is by attachment and sale of the bonds. Learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that the bonds granted under the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are in respect of compensation for the estates acquired under that Act, the interim compensation too is part of the compensation for the same acquisition. Learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that the bonds granted under the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are in respect of compensation for the estates acquired under that Act, the interim compensation too is part of the compensation for the same acquisition. Thus any distinction between compensation payable in cash would in his opinion be discriminatory and against the true intention underlying Sec. 9. The true intention of the section has to be read and gathered from the words used by it. The legislature has in using the expression "is executed by attachment and sale of the bonds granted to the judgment debtor on account of compensation or rehabilitation grant" limited its scope by confining its benefit to those cases only where attachment and sale of bonds is asked. It is hardly necessary to point out that so long as the language of the law is clear all considerations about what the law might or ought to have been are beside the point. Sec. 9 is clearly applicable to those cases only where the decree is executed by attachment and sale of the bonds. There is no ambiguity in the section and in its absence, it must be held to apply to those cases only where execution is asked by attachment and sale of the bonds. 7. It will not be out of place to mention that in this very Act the legislature has used the comprehensive term "compensation" which included both interim and final compensation, wherever the intention was to make the provision applicable to compensation as a whole. Sec. 8 is one instance of it. For the above reason too, therefore, Sec. 9 must be held to apply to those cases only where execution is sought "by attachment and sale of bonds on account of compensation or rehabilitation grant." 8. The order of the learned District Judge remanding back the case to the executing court was under the circumstances clearly wrong. Since the cash compensation alone was sought to be followed and there was no request for attachment or sale of the bonds, an inquiry in accordance with Schedule II was unnecessary. These appeals should therefore succeed. They are accordingly allowed. The order passed by the lower appellate Court is set aside. Since the cash compensation alone was sought to be followed and there was no request for attachment or sale of the bonds, an inquiry in accordance with Schedule II was unnecessary. These appeals should therefore succeed. They are accordingly allowed. The order passed by the lower appellate Court is set aside. This order will not affect the right of the respondent to attack the execution on any other ground, including the ground as to the applicability of Sec. 9 of the U. P. Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act, in the event of execution being sought against bonds in respect of compensation or rehabilitation grant. The appellants will get their cost from the respondents.