JUDGMENT A.P. Srivastava, J. - This is a decree-holders' appeal. The decree holders obtained three decrees against the judgment-debtors under Section 4 of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act. The decrees were transmitted in the usual course to the Collector for liquidation. After the coming into force of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act, the judgment-debtors made an application that the amounts of the decrees be reduced in accordance with the provisions of that Act. The Special Judge accepted the request and has reduced the amounts of those three decrees. The decree-holders question the correctness of the order by the present appeal. A preliminary objection has been raised by the office that the appeal does not lie and that the order in question could only be revised. This objection has been pressed on behalf of the judgment-debtors also. The order in question has been passed by the Special Judge. Every order of Special Judge is appealable under Section 45 of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act. This order too was, therefore, appealable. The office as well as learned counsel for the respondents are, therefore, not correct in their submission that no appeal lay. 2. Another objection raised is that the appeal could not be filed as an execution appeal. This appears to be correct. The matter did not relate to execution. The application for the reduction of the amounts of the decrees under the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act had been made not to the executing Court but to the Court which had passed the decrees. The Special Judge was the Court which had passed the decrees. The application could not, therefore, be treated as an application in connection with the execution. The appellants were, therefore, not correct in describing the present appeal as an Execution First Appeal. The correct description would have been First Appeal From Order. We have, therefore, treated the appeal as a First Appeal From Order. 3. A number of contentions have been urged in support of the appeal but it is not necessary to consider all of them. The contention, which, in our opinion, has great force and is enough for the disposal of the appeal, is that the only provision of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act under which the amounts of decrees could be reduced was Sec. 4. The contention, which, in our opinion, has great force and is enough for the disposal of the appeal, is that the only provision of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act under which the amounts of decrees could be reduced was Sec. 4. That section did not apply to these decrees as it applied only to decrees under which some property was charged. The decrees passed in the present appeal were simple money decrees as only simple decrees could have been passed by the Special Judge under Section 14 of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act in view of sub-sec. (7) of that section. No properties thus stood charged under the decrees and that being so, Sec. 4 of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act could not apply and no reduction could be ordered. It is conceded that there is no other provision of that Act under which any reduction could have been ordered. 4. Reference was, however, made to Sec. 19-A of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, 1934 inserted in that Act by Section 13 of the U.P. Encumbered Estates (Amendment) Act, 1954 (Act No. XIII of 1954). That section reads as follows: - "19-A. Where a decree has been passed by the Special Judge before the commencement of the U.P. Encumbered Estates (Amendment) Act, 1954, and the decree not having been already fully satisfied is in respect of 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 under Section 19 shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly." 5. It is noticeable that the section does not confer any power on the Special Judge to reduce the amount of any decree. It only requires him in certain contingencies to inform the Collector about the reduced amount of the decree and to issue a certificate under Cl. (b). It is noticeable that the section does not confer any power on the Special Judge to reduce the amount of any decree. It only requires him in certain contingencies to inform the Collector about the reduced amount of the decree and to issue a certificate under Cl. (b). The circumstances which must be present in order to enable the Special Judge to act under the section are: - (1) The decree must have been passed before the commencement of the U.P. Encumbered Estates (Amendment) Act (Act No. XIII of 1954); (2) the decree should not have been already fully satisfied; (3) the decree must be in respect of secured debts to which the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act, 1952 applies; and (4) the amount of the decree must have been reduced in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act. Whatever reduction in the amount of the decree can be made must, therefore, be made under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act and not under Sec. 19-A of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act. 6. We are, therefore, referred back to the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act and if Section 4 of that Act does not apply there is no other provision of that Act under which the amounts of the decrees can be reduced. It thus becomes clear that the Special Judge has no power to reduce the amounts of the decrees. 7. The circumstances disclose a lacuna which can be remedied only by the legislature. The intention obviously was to permit reduction of the amounts of those decrees also which had been passed by Special Judges in respect of secured debts under the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act. It was, however, overlooked that such decrees were simple money decrees even though the debts in respect of which they were passed were originally secured ones. It was also forgotten that Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act which was the only provision under which the amounts of decrees already passed could be reduced applied only to those decrees under which some property was charged and not to simple money decrees at all. It was also forgotten that Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act which was the only provision under which the amounts of decrees already passed could be reduced applied only to those decrees under which some property was charged and not to simple money decrees at all. The purpose of the Legislature was, therefore, not achieved because the decrees passed by Special Judges in respect of debts which were originally secured could not be reduced either under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act or under the provisions of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act. This defect can be removed only by a suit able amendment made by the Legislature. The appeal, therefore, succeeds. It is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. The appellants will get their costs from the respondents. [The attention of the Bench does not appear to have been drawn to another Division Bench case of Vishva Nath Rai v. Sarbdeo Rai, 1959 A. L. J. R. 211 in which a different view has been taken. This decision, however, seems to lay down the correct law and is also in consonance with the view taken in Raghuraj Singh v. Murari Lal, 1961 A.L.J. R. 955 (D.B.) - Ed.].