ORDER S.M.N. Raina, J. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The case of the Petitioner is as follows: Kunjilal, father of the Petitioner, was a 'Pukhta Maurasi Kashtkar' of the land in dispute which is situate in village Nimere in Tehsil Dabra, while Rao Lokpalsingh, father of Respondent No. 1, was Jagirdar of the said village. As Kunjilal was dispossessed of the land in suit by Rao Lokpalsingh on 15-5-1938 Kunjilal filed a suit against him under Section 325 of the Quanoon Mal Gwalior on 30-4-1941, in Tehsil Court for possession and damages etc. In this suit Bindrawan, uncle of Kunjilal, was also impleaded as pro forma Defendant. During the pendency of the suit both Kunjilal and Rao Lokpalsingh died and their legal representatives were brought on record. The suit was ultimately decreed on 1-5-1961 (vide Annexure 'A'). The Respondent No 1 preferred an appeal against the said decision which was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dabra on 5-10-1965 (vide Annexure 'B'). On 27-10-1965 the Petitioner filed an application for execution of the decree in the Tehsil Court which passed an order on 28 10-1965. In pursuance of this order the Petitioner was put in possession of the land in suit on 31-10-1965 (vide Annexure 'C'). Thereafter, the Respondent No. 1 filed an application in the Tehsil Court on 4-11-1965 challenging the execution proceedings on the ground that they were in contravention of Section 464 of the Quanoon Mal. It was further pleaded therein that Respondent No. 1 was not in actual possession of the land in dispute at the time of execution and that it was actually in possession of Respondents Nos. 4 to 12 who were transferees from him. Respondents Nos. 4 to 12 also preferred a similar objection to the execution and prayed for restoration of possession. The Tehsil Court disallowed the objection of the Respondents on 22-11-1965 (vide Annexure 'D'). Respondent No. 1 and other Respondents preferred separate revisions before the Collector, but they were disallowed by the learned Additional" Collector by separate orders dated 12-9 1967 (vide Annexures 'E' and 'F') Respondent No. 1 thereupon filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, against the decision of the Additional Collector dated 12-9 1967. Similarly Respondents Nos. 4 to 12 preferred a revision petition before him. Similarly Respondents Nos. 4 to 12 preferred a revision petition before him. The Additional Commissioner held that the execution was in contravention of Section 464 of the Quanoon Mal and accordingly allowed the revision petition filed by the Respondent No. 1. The revision petition filed by the Respondents Badri and others was, however, disallowed (vide Annexures 'G' and 'H'). The Petitioner then preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue against the decision of the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior dated 16 12-1967. Similarly Respondents Badri and others preferred a revision petition. The Board of Revenue by a common order dated 13-11-1969 held in favour of the Respondents Nos. 4 to 12 and ordered that possession of the land in dispute be restored back to the Respondents. The revision petition filed by the Petitioner was rejected. Being aggrieved by this decision the Petitioner has come up before this Court praying that the decisions of the Board of Revenue and the Additional Commissioner be quashed Petitioner Bakshilal has also filed a separate petition under Article 227 of the Constitution in this Court against the aforesaid decision of the Board of Revenue as it was a composite order dealing with two revision petitions, one by the Petitioner and the other by Respondents. As both these petitions arise out of a common order of the Board of Revenue they are being disposed of by this order. 5. It was not disputed before us that after the appeal filed by Respondent No. 1 against the decree of the trial Court was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer there was a second appeal which was also dismissed. Thus the decree has still remained unaffected and is still in force. The only ground on which the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue ordered restoration of possession of the land in dispute to the Respondents was that the execution proceedings were in contravention of Section 464 of the Quanoon Mal Gwalior State and as such the Respondents were entitled to restitution. We have, therefore, to consider whether the view taken by the Board of Revenue is in accordance with law. The first point that arises for consideration in this connection is whether Section 464 of the Quanoon Mal is still in force. We have, therefore, to consider whether the view taken by the Board of Revenue is in accordance with law. The first point that arises for consideration in this connection is whether Section 464 of the Quanoon Mal is still in force. Under Section 3 of the M. B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 previous laws as specified in Schedule I to the Act were repealed to the extent mentioned therein. Entry No. 5 in the Schedule I is as under: Quanoon Mal of Gwalior, Samvat 1893. Chapter 2 whole and Sections 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 430, 431, 441, 455, 456, 487 and any other section contrary to and inconsistent with the provisions of Part I of this Act to the extent of such inconsistency or contradiction." Section 464 of the Quanoon Mal occurs in Chapter IV and, therefore, it can be deemed to have been repealed only if it is contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of Part I of the Act. We do not find anything in Part I of the M. B. Tenancy Act which may be inconsistent with the provisions of this section and this position was also not disputed before us by the learned Counsel for both the sides. It is, therefore, clear that Section 464 of the Quanoon Mal was not repealed by the M. B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007. The M. B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 was repealed by Section 262 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. The enactments repealed by the said section are specified in Schedule II, but there is no mention of the Quanoon Mal of Gwalior State therein. It, however, appears that the provisions of Quanoon Mal were duly repealed by Section 41 of the M. B. Zamindari Abolition Act and Section 40 of M B. Abolition of Jagirs Act. Quanoon Raiyyatbari Riyasat Gwalior, Samvat 1974 was applicable to Government lands and Jagir lands settled on Raiyyatbari system while Quanoon Mal, Samvat 1393, was applicable to Zamindari lands. By virtue of Section 163 of the Quanoon Raiyyatbari Riyasat Gwalior, Samvat 1974 certain sections of Quanoon Mal relating to suits etc were made applicable to lands settled on Raiyyatbari system. Quanoon Raiyyatbari Riyasat Gwalior, Samvat 1974 was applicable to Government lands and Jagir lands settled on Raiyyatbari system while Quanoon Mal, Samvat 1393, was applicable to Zamindari lands. By virtue of Section 163 of the Quanoon Raiyyatbari Riyasat Gwalior, Samvat 1974 certain sections of Quanoon Mal relating to suits etc were made applicable to lands settled on Raiyyatbari system. The Quanoon Raiyyatbari, Samvat 1974 was repealed by the M. B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, vide Schedule I, entry 2 Under Section 41 of the M B. Zamindari Abolition Act the provisions of Quanoon Mal, Samvat 1983 corresponding to the provisions of Part II of M. B Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 were repealed. As the provisions for suits and execution of decrees have been made in the said Part it would appear that the corresponding provisions of the Quanoon Mal, Samvat 1983, were repealed. Similarly in Section 40 of the M. B. Abolition of Jagirs Act, it was laid down that from the date of resumption of Jagirs, the Quanoon Mal of Gwalior State, Samvat 1983, shall cease to operate in Jagir3 land settled on Zamindari system. It appears that the land in suit was situate in a Jagir village and thus, in either case, the provisions of the Quanoon Mal Samvat 1983 were repealed. We, therefore, find that Section 464 of the Quanoon Mal of Gwalior State, Samvat 1983, ceased to operate long back. It is no doubt true that in Section 40 of the M.B. Abolition of Jagirs Act as well as Section 41 of the M. B. Zamindari Abolition Act there is a proviso that all cases pending at the commencement of the Acts shall be decided according to the provisions of laws in force before such commencement. But the proviso is not attracted in this case because the application for execution was filed in the year 1965 long after the Acts came into force. We, therefore, hold that Section 464 of the Quanoon Mal is no longer in force and as such the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were in error in treating the execution proceedings void and of no effect on the ground that they were in contravention of Section 464 of the Quanoon Mal. Apart from this the Board of Revenue was in error in holding that there is a vested right in a matter of mere procedure. Apart from this the Board of Revenue was in error in holding that there is a vested right in a matter of mere procedure. Execution of a decree is procedural matter rather than one of substantive right. In Laxmilal v. Onkarlal, AIR 1955 Raj 33 their Lordships observed as under in paragraph 4:-"Nobody can have a vested right in matters of mere procedure. Execution of decree is a procedural matter rather than one of substantive right." Since it is not disputed that the decree stands in favour of the Petitioner, there was absolutely no justification for ordering restitution merely on the ground that an irregularity in execution proceedings was committed. The learned Counsel for the Respondents Nos 4 to 12 urged that they had an independent right to be in possession of the land in dispute and this has not been considered by the Revenue Courts. We are, however, not concerned with this question in these proceedings. If the Respondents were not parties to the suit or are not otherwise bound by the decree it would be open to them to establish their title to the land in a civil suit or other independent proceedings, if so advised. The petitions are, therefore, hereby allowed and the order of the Board of Revenue as well as of the Additional Commissioner ordering restoration of possession of the land in suit to the Respondents is hereby set aside. The Respondent No. 1 shall pay the costs of the Petitioner and the Respondents shall bear their own. Counsel fee Rs. 50 in each case, if certified. The amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the Petitioner. Petition allowed