Judgment :- 1.The decree-holder bank is the revision petitioner. 2. The application filed by the petitioner bank under S.151 and 152 C. P. C. seeking amendment of the decree for sale of the mortgaged properties, the petitioner-bank has obtained against the respondents, stands dismissed by the order under challenge. 3. According to the counsel representing the bank a composite decree ought to have been passed in view of the provisions contained in R.3 of 0.34 as amended by the High Court. However, only a preliminary decree has been passed. The bank therefore was constrained to move the petition under S.151 and 152 C. P. C. for amendment of the decree. The learned counsel for the judgment debtors however, contended that the decree in question was one passed at a time when 0.34 stood amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 and as such the court was justified in not passing a composite decree. The counsel therefore contended that there was no scope for amendment of the decree making it composite decree. 4. The question arising for consideration thus is: Can the bank contend for the position that in a suit for sale of the mortgaged properties a composite decree, as provided for under 0.34 C.P.C. as amended by the High Court alone can be passed even after the amendment of 0.34 by Act 104 of 1976? The answer to this question depends upon the construction of S.97 of Act 104 of 1976. The Section reads: "Any amendment made, or any provision inserted in the principal Act by a State legislature or a High Court before the commencement of this Act shall, except in so far as such amendment of provision is consistent with the provisions of the Principal Act as amended by this Act stand repealed". Construing this section, the Supreme Court in Ganpat v. IInd Additional District Judge, Balia (A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 589) has held thus:- "The object of S.97 of the Amending Act appears to be that on and after February 1,1977 throughout India wherever the Code was in force there should be some procedural law in operation in all the civil courts subject of course to any future local amendment that may be made either by the State Legislature or by the High Court, as the case may be, in accordance with law. Until such amendment is made the Code as amended by the amending Act alone should govern the procedure in civil courts which are governed by the Code". It can be gathered from the above statement of law that on the introduction of the new 0.34 by Act 104 of 1976, the old one, whether in its original form or as amended by the State Legislature or The High Court would not be available to be pressed into service by a party to the litigation. In other words the Code as amended by Act 104 of 1976, subject to some future amendment that may be made either by the State Legislature or The High Court would govern the proceedings before civil courts. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that since 0.34 as amended by The High Court is not inconsistent with 0.34 as amended by Act 104 of 1976 the said order shall govern the case on hand. In support of this argument the learned counsel made particular reference to the following observation of the Supreme Court in Ganpat case: "As observed earlier, the effect of S.97(1) is that of local amendments made to any of the provisions of the code either by the State Legislature or by the High Court which were inconsistent with the Code as amended by the amending Act stood repealed irrespective of the fact whether the corresponding provision in the Code had been amended or modified by the amending Act and that was subject only to what was found in sub-section (2) of S.97. The question therefore is: Are the provisions of R.3 of 0.34 as amended by the High Court inconsistent with the provisions contained in R.4 and 5 of 0.34 as amended by Act 104 of 1976. R.4 and 5, even according to the counsel for the bank, insist upon the passing first, of a preliminary decree, followed by a final decree. R.3 of 0.34 as amended by the High Court indisputably enables the passing of a composite decree. The effect of the provisions contained in the present R.4 and 5 of 0.34 is that, without passing a separate final decree, a mortgagor cannot enjoy the fruits of the decree directing sale of the hypotheca. R.3 of 0.34 as amended by the High Court indisputably enables the passing of a composite decree. The effect of the provisions contained in the present R.4 and 5 of 0.34 is that, without passing a separate final decree, a mortgagor cannot enjoy the fruits of the decree directing sale of the hypotheca. The provisions contained in R.3 of 0.34 as amended by The High Court cannot in my view, hold the field as the same is now occupied by R.4 and 5 of 0.34 as amended by Act 104 of 1976. There is thus inconsistency between these two provisions. A decree for sale of the property after the enactment of the new 0.34 therefore cannot be passed under 0.34 as amended by The High Court. 0.34 as amended by The High Court, in other words stands repealed. 6. The learned counsel representing the bank Sri. P. K. Musa in C. R. P. NO. 1298/88 further contended that even under the amended provisions it is possible to pass a composite decree. He, in this connection, made reference to Clause 2 of R.15 of 0.34. It reads:- "Where a decree orders payment of money and charges it on immovable property on default of payment, the amount may be realised by sale of that property in execution of the decree". First of all, this provision does not govern the passing of a decree in a mortgage suit. This is only to cover cases where decree directs payment of money and charges the same on immovable property and on default of payment, the amount can be realised by sale of the immovable property in execution of the decree. This provision therefore will not help the petitioner bank to contend for the position that a composite decree in a suit for sale of the mortgaged property is possible under the newly introduced 0.34. 7. From the discussion above, it is clear that the court below has rightly rejected the application for amendment of the decree. C.R.P. therefore is dismissed. No costs. Dismissed.