ORDER : Ved Prakash Vaish, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. This second appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short, C.P.C.) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19th July, 2002 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (E.C.Act), Sultanpur in Civil Appeal No. 02 of 1997 whereby appeal filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 was allowed. 3. The relevant facts need mention in brief as follows. 4. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction bearing Original Suit No. 24 of 1987 (Ram Jeet Singh and another versus U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. and others including the appellants herein) seeking injunction from proceeding on the basis of recovery certificate and to confirm the auction sale and not to interfere in the possession of plaintiffs on the auction land. The suit was filed on the grounds, inter alia, that the plaintiff no. 1 Ram Jeet Singh was minor as he was aged about 16 years; he was under the guardianship of his mother Jugura Devi; the plaintiffs had not given any application to defendant no. 1 for becoming member or for taking loan; in the year 1982, the father of plaintiff no. 1, namely, Ram Prasad Singh and plaintiff no. 2, namely, Jai Bahadur Singh moved an application before defendant no. 1 bank for obtaining loan of Rs. 70,000/-; plaintiff no. 1 was not aware regarding the proceedings on the said application as he was minor. It was alleged that in the month of June, 1986, Amin from Tehsil Amethi came to the house of plaintiffs to inform them that defendant no. 1 Bank had issued recovery certificate of Rs. 47,000/-against Ram Prasad Singh and Jai Bahadur Singh, and on the basis of the said recovery certificate, the said amount was to be recovered as land revenue; defendant no. 1-Bank had no right to issue recovery certificate and to recover the outstanding amount as land revenue; the defendant bank used to advance loan on mortgage of the land and for recovery of the outstanding amount; the provisions of U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Act, 1964 are applicable. 1-Bank had no right to issue recovery certificate and to recover the outstanding amount as land revenue; the defendant bank used to advance loan on mortgage of the land and for recovery of the outstanding amount; the provisions of U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Act, 1964 are applicable. It was also alleged that in the month of July, 1986, the plaintiffs gave a reference of notice under section 117 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act was issued. It was also alleged that the plaintiffs came to know that the land, particulars of which are given in the plaint, were auctioned but no proclamation was issued; no bid was given and entire proceedings of auction have been conducted to give benefit to defendant nos. 2 and 3 (who are appellants herein) and they have no right to interfere in the possession of plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction. 5. The suit was contested by defendant no. 1, U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank (in short "the bank") by filing written statement. The bank denied the allegations made in the plaint; it was stated that on 29.9.1981, Ram Prasad Singh, father of plaintiff no. 1 Ram Jeet Singh and plaintiff No.2 Jai Bahadur Singh moved an application for obtaining loan for purchasing of a tractor; on the said application, the photograph of Ram Prasad Singh was affixed and Khatauni of the land was also attached. The loan application was also signed by plaintiff no. 2 Jai Bahadur Singh; after due enquiry, a loan of Rs. 70,000/-was granted to Ram Prasad Singh father of plaintiff no. 1 Ram Jeet Singh and plaintiff no. 2 Jai Bahadur Singh. Ram Prasad Singh father of plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 6 as well as plaintiff no. 2 Jai Bahadur Singh mortgaged their land vide registered mortgage deed and also executed a demand promissory note dated 23.01.1982; the amount of loan was disbursed on 23.01.1982 through cheques; on the request of Ram Prasad Singh, a draft no. Ram Prasad Singh father of plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 6 as well as plaintiff no. 2 Jai Bahadur Singh mortgaged their land vide registered mortgage deed and also executed a demand promissory note dated 23.01.1982; the amount of loan was disbursed on 23.01.1982 through cheques; on the request of Ram Prasad Singh, a draft no. AM 331790 dated 29.01.1982 was issued to Ram Prasad Singh drawn on State Bank of India; a tractor was purchased from M/s U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. Lucknow and receipt of the same was produced in the bank; Sri Ram Prasad Singh and plaintiff no.2, namely, Jai Bahadur Singh failed to repay the outstanding amount of loan, a notice of recovery of outstanding amount of loan was given to Ram Prasad Singh and plaintiff no. 2; the outstanding amount was not paid, therefore, as per terms and conditions of mortgage deed, the defendant bank issued proclamation of auction of mortgage land. It was further stated that the suit is barred by provisions of sections 70 and 117 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and the suit is also barred by provisions of Section 287-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act; the suit is also not maintainable as per terms of clause-9 of the mortgage deed. 6. The appellants (auction purchasers, who were defendants No. 2 and 3 in the original suit) filed a separate written statement and denied the allegations made in the plaint. It was stated that Ram Prasad Singh, father of plaintiff no.1 and plaintiff no. 2 obtained a loan of Rs. 70,000/-for purchasing of a tractor. The loan was to be repaid in the installments along with interest but outstanding amount was not paid and a sum of Rs. 1,30,417.64/-was outstanding. After the death of Ram Prasad Singh, plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 6 became legal heirs and inherited the land left by late Ram Prasad Singh. It was also stated that defendant no. 1 Bank issued a recovery certificate, on the basis of the said recovery certificate, proclamation was issued and land was auctioned on 28.1.1987; defendants no. 2 and 3 gave highest bid and land was auctioned in their favour and auction sale was finalized. It was also stated that plaintiff, namely, Ram Jeet Singh filed an objection no. 1 Bank issued a recovery certificate, on the basis of the said recovery certificate, proclamation was issued and land was auctioned on 28.1.1987; defendants no. 2 and 3 gave highest bid and land was auctioned in their favour and auction sale was finalized. It was also stated that plaintiff, namely, Ram Jeet Singh filed an objection no. 82-Sultanpur (Ram Jeet Singh versus Narendra Prasad Singh and others) before the Commissioner, Faizabad, which was dismissed on 28.3.1989 and auction sale was held to be valid. 7. Defendants no. 4 and 5, Sub-Divisional Officer and State of U.P. did not file any written statement. Defendant no. 6 Shatrughan Singh also did not file written statement. 8. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by the trial court:- 1- D;k oknhx.k Áfroknh la[;k 1 ds oS/k lnL; gSa\ ;fn ugha rks mldk ÁHkko\ 2- D;k olwyh Áek.ki= fcuk Ákf/kdkj ,oa fcuk {ks=kf/kdkj ds gS\ ;fn gka rks ÁHkko\ 3- D;k dqdhZ ,oa foØ; uhykeh dh dk;Zokgh voS/k ,oa fcuk {ks=kf/kdkj ds gS tSlk fd okn i= esa dfFkr gS\ 4- ¼,½ D;k nkos dk ewY;kadu de fd;k x;k gS\ ¼ch½ D;k U;k;'kqYd de vnk fd;k x;k gS\ 5- D;k nkok mRRkj Áns'k lgdkjh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&70 o 117 ls ckf/kr gS\ 6- D;k nkok mRRkj Áns'k tehankjh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&287 , ls ckf/kr gS\ 7- D;k nkok pyus ;ksX; ugha gS tSlk fd Áfrokn i= 18d&1 dh /kkjk&20 esa vfHkdfFkr gS\ 8- oknh fdl vuqrks"k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 9- D;k Áfroknh la[;k 2 o 3 mfpr ÁfrQy ds lkFk ln~Hkkoh Øsrk gSa tSlk fd Áfrokn i= esa vfHkdfFkr gS\ 10- D;k oknhx.k dk nkok pyus yk;d ugha gS tSlk fd Áfroknh la[;k 2 o 3 ds Áfroknh i= dh /kkjk&18 esa vfHkdfFkr gS\ 9. In support of their case, the plaintiffs examined Ram Jeet Singh (PW-1), Jai Bahadur Singh (PW-2), Ram Nayan Tiwari (PW-3) and Shiv Bahadur Singh (PW-4). Defendant No. 1-bank examined R.N.Trivedi, Field Officer who proved the documents of loan (DW-1) and defendant No. 2, Narendra Pratap Singh examined himself as DW-2. 10. Vide judgment and decree dated 16.12.1996, the learned IVth Additional Civil Judge, Sultanpur dismissed the suit of plaintiffs. Against the said judgment and decree, respondents no. Defendant No. 1-bank examined R.N.Trivedi, Field Officer who proved the documents of loan (DW-1) and defendant No. 2, Narendra Pratap Singh examined himself as DW-2. 10. Vide judgment and decree dated 16.12.1996, the learned IVth Additional Civil Judge, Sultanpur dismissed the suit of plaintiffs. Against the said judgment and decree, respondents no. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) filed a Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1997 and the same was allowed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 19.7.2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge (E.C.Act), Court No.9, Sultanpur. 11. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants (who are defendants no. 2 and 3 in original suit) have preferred the present appeal. 12. Vide order dated 26.08.2002, my learned predecessor admitted the appeal on the substantial questions of law framed in paras (a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of the memo of appeal, which are read as under :- "(a) Whether in view of the admitted fact that the agricultural land inherited by respondent No. 1 from his father and the land of respondent No. 2 had already being auctioned by respondent No. 3 in connection of the recovery of loan taken by the father of respondent No. 1 and by respondent No. 2 under mortgaged with respondent No. 3, the simple suit for permanent injunction was legally maintainable in view of bar created under section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act on the ground of availability of alternate remedy, a suit for cancellation of the recovery certificate and the auction sale in question? (c) Whether in view of section 19 of the U. P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Act which prohibits questioning/challenging the title of auction purchaser who are the appellant, on th ground of irregularity in auction sale and only provides the remedy for damages against the respondent No.3, the suit for permanent injunction was at all legally maintainable? (d) Whether in view of the fact that in pursuance of Auction Sale actual possession over the land in question by the Nayab Tehsildar, delivered to the appellants and the plaintiffs/respondents were not in possession the learned lower appellate court could legally pass the decree for permanent injunction without reversing the findings of learned lower court in this regard? (d) Whether in view of the fact that in pursuance of Auction Sale actual possession over the land in question by the Nayab Tehsildar, delivered to the appellants and the plaintiffs/respondents were not in possession the learned lower appellate court could legally pass the decree for permanent injunction without reversing the findings of learned lower court in this regard? (e) Whether in absence of any specific relief in the plaint by the plaintiffs/respondents for cancellation of sale certificate, auction sale and recovery of possession from the appellant was the learned lower appellate court legally justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower court and decree for granting permanent injunction? (f) Whether the respondent No. 3 being cooperative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and in view of the findings recorded by both the learned court below that the father of the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were members of respondent No. 3, the suit for permanent injunction was barred in view of the provision of Arbitration under Section-20 of the Co-operative Societies Act? (g) Whether in absence of any relief sought for setting aside the sale within time as provided under Article 99 of the Limitation Act, a suit for permanent injunction was barred? (h) Whether after the dismissal of the objection preferred against auction sale by the plaintiff/respondents before Commissioner under Rule 285(I) the suit for injunction was barred in view of the provision 285 (K) of the U. P. Z. A.& L. R. Rules in respect of auction sale?" 13. A substantial question of law has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd.', AIR 1962 SC 1314 to mean as under:- "The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest Court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd, the question would not be a substantial question of law." 14. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that Ram Prasad Singh (father of plaintiff No. 1) and Jai Bahadur Singh (plaintiff No. 2) jointly took membership of U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited, Amethi, Sultanpur (defendant No. 1) and applied for loan of Rs.75,000/-for purchasing of a tractor, the bank advanced a sum of Rs.70,000/-on execution of promissory note and receipt as well as mortgaged deed whereby 2/3 of share of the land in dispute was mortgaged in favour of the bank. Ram Prasad Singh, one of the borrowers died in the month of May, 1984 leaving behind his two sons, namely, Shatrughan Singh (respondent/defendant no. 6) and Ram Jeet Singh (plaintiff/respondent No. 1). The plaintiffs and defendant No. 6 could not repay the amount of loan; on 17.01.1985, the bank issued a notice of sale proclamation against Ram Prasad Singh (deceased) and Jai Bahadur Singh (respondent No. 2); the bank issued a recovery certificate to the Collector, Sultanpur; the sale proclamation under Rule 282 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules was issued; the property was sold in auction on 28.01.1987. He also submitted that the appellants were the highest bidder and they had deposited 1/4th amount of their bid on the same date and the remaining 3/4th amount was deposited on 09.02.1987. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the respondents No. 1 and 2, herein, filed their suit for permanent injunction on 11.02.1987, the relief of injunction is an equitable and discretionary relief but the respondents have not approached the Court with clean hands; respondent No. 1, namely, Ram Jeet Singh was stated to be minor and aged about 16 years in the plaint, which is incorrect. According to him, Ram Jeet Singh was major on the date of filing of the suit. According to him, Ram Jeet Singh was major on the date of filing of the suit. He pointed out that Ram Prasad Singh (now deceased) survived by two sons, namely, Ram Jeet Singh (respondent No.1) and Shatrughan Singh (defendant No.6); however, defendant No. 6 did not contest the suit which shows that Shatrughan Singh, one of the sons of Ram Prasad Singh did not dispute the outstanding amount and the mortgaged deeds. 16. Another submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that respondents No. 1 and 2, wherein (plaintiffs), filed objections under Rule 285-I of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules which were rejected by the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad on 28th March, 1989; the auction was confirmed by the competent authority on 04th September, 1989 and the sale certificate was issued to the appellants; the name of auction purchaser was entered in the revenue record by the Tehsilder, Amethi, Sultanpur. Learned counsel for the appellants also pointed out that the possession of the disputed land was delivered to the appellants by the orders of Sub-Divisional Officer, Amethi and the memo of possession was prepared by Nayab Tehsildar. 17. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the objections filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) under Rule 285-I of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules were dismissed by the Commissioner and the respondents had the remedy of revision under Section 333 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of 'Ram Swaroop vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow and Others', 1990 RD 291 (Full Bench). 18. Yet another submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the auction sale in favour of the appellants was confirmed and the sale certificate was issued and the possession was also delivered to the appellants; and, therefore, the remedy available to the respondents was to file suit for cancellation of sale certificate as per provisions of Rule 285-K of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of 'Ram Gopal vs. Board of Revenue and Others', (2014) 123 RD 182 . 19. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of 'Ram Gopal vs. Board of Revenue and Others', (2014) 123 RD 182 . 19. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the suit was barred by Section 70 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act as the respondents failed to refer the matter to the arbitrator; the suit also barred by Section 117 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. 20. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents urged that Ram Prasad Singh and Jai Bahadur Singh applied for loan of Rs.75,000/-on 24.09.1981 for purchasing of a tractor; U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank sanctioned and gave a loan of Rs.70,000/-on execution of mortgaged deed; said Ram Prasad Singh along with Jai Bahadur Singh mortgaged 2/3rd land owned by them. Ram Prasad Singh died in the month of May, 1984; after his death notice of proclamation dated 17.01.1985 was issued to Ram Prasad Singh (deceased) and Jai Bahadur Singh. 21. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the U.P. State Co-operative Land and Development Bank Act, 1964 is a special enactment and the proceedings for recovery of loan were initiated under the said Act. The said act is a complete Court and, therefore, the proceedings for recovery of the outstanding amount and auction proceedings under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the Rules therein were not permissible. 22. Another submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that neither any demand notice was issued nor the property was attached as required by Sections 279 and 282 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; no notice of auction or proclamation was served on Ram Jeet Singh who was minor on the date of issuance of proclamation/notice of auction. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the auction proceedings are void. 23. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgments in the case of 'Mahadeo Prasad Singh and another. vs. Ram Lochan and others, AIR 1981, Supreme Court 416 and 'Smt. Urmila Devi & others vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad & others, AIR 2013 Allahabad 11. 24. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties. I have also carefully gone through the material on record. 25. vs. Ram Lochan and others, AIR 1981, Supreme Court 416 and 'Smt. Urmila Devi & others vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad & others, AIR 2013 Allahabad 11. 24. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties. I have also carefully gone through the material on record. 25. At the outset, it may be mentioned that respondents No. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) filed a suit for injunction, in the title of plaint and in para 1 of the plaint it was alleged that plaintiff No. 1, Ram Jeet Singh was minor as he was aged about 16 years. Respondent, Ram Jeet Singh appeared as PW 1, he disclosed his date of birth as 07.12.1969, and the suit was filed on 11.02.1987. Thus, he was minor on the date of filing of the suit. 26. The issues/questions No. (a), (c) and (h) are inter connected and are being decided together. In the instant case, Sri Ram Prasad Singh (now deceased) father of plaintiff No. 1 and Jai Bhadur Singh (plaintiff No. 2) took a loan of Rs. 70,000/-from the defendant No. 1 bank and executed mortgaged deed in respect of 2/3rd share of the disputed land. Sri Ram Prasad Singh died in the month of May, 1984 and he was survived by two sons, namely, Shatrughan Singh (respondent No. 6) and Ram Jeet Singh (Plaintiff/respondent No.1). It is not disputed that the amount of loan was not repaid. Respondent no. 3 bank issued a notice dated 17.01.1985 and informed to respondents no. 1 and 2 regarding the outstanding amount, the proclamation notice was issued and the auction was held on 28.01.1987, the appellants were the highest bidders, 1/4th of the bid amount was deposited on 28.01.1987 and the remaining 3/4th amount of bid was deposited on 09.02.1987. 27. In the instant case, the auction was held on 28.01.1987, the auction was confirmed on 04.09.1989 and, thereafter, the sale certificate was issued. Pursuant to the sale certificate, the disputed land was mutated in the revenue records in the name of the appellants. On 23.07.1990, the possession of the disputed land was delivered to the appellants as per orders of Sub-Divisional Officer and a memo of possession was prepared by Nayab Tehsildar. 28. Pursuant to the sale certificate, the disputed land was mutated in the revenue records in the name of the appellants. On 23.07.1990, the possession of the disputed land was delivered to the appellants as per orders of Sub-Divisional Officer and a memo of possession was prepared by Nayab Tehsildar. 28. Respondents No.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) filed a suit for injunction simplicitor on 11.02.1987, the auction was held on 28.01.1987, the auction was confirmed on 04.09.1989 and, thereafter, the sale certificate was issued. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondents No. 1 and 2 filed objections under Rule 285-I of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules and which were dismissed by the Commissioner, Faziabad on 28.03.1989. The said order was not challenged by the respondents No. 1 and 2. The respondents No. 1 and 2 did not challenge the auction sale which has already been confirmed. 29. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention the relevant provisions of Rules 285-I and K of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules which read as follows: "285-I. (i) At any time within thirty days from the date of the sale, application may be made to the Commissioner to set aside the sale on the ground of some material irregularity or mistake in the publishing or conducting it; but no sale shall be set aside on such ground unless the applicants proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that he has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or mistake. (ii)***** (iii) The order of the Commissioner passed under this rule shall be final. 285-K If no application under Rule 215-I is made within the time allowed therefor, all claims on the ground of irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting the sale shall be barred: Provided that nothing contained in this rule shall bar the institution of a suit in the civil court for the purpose of setting aside a sale on the ground of fraud." 30. A bare perusal of the aforesaid rules makes it clear that after the dismissal of the objections under Rule 285-I of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules by the Commissioner, the only appropriate remedy available to respondents No. 1 and 2 was to file a suit in the civil court for setting aside the sale but admittedly the respondents have failed to file the suit for setting aside the same. Since, no efforts were made by the plaintiffs for amending the plaint so as to challenge the sale, a simplicitor suit for permanent injunction at this juncture was not maintainable. 31. As regards, the other issue/question No. (d) it may be mentioned that undisputedly pursuant to the sale certificate, the disputed land was mutated in the revenue records in the name of the appellants. Thereafter, on 23.07.1990, the possession of the disputed land was delivered to the appellants as per orders of Sub-Divisional Officer and a memo of possession was prepared by Nayab Tehsilder. 32. The first appellate court has decreed the suit of respondents No. 1 and 2 and restrained the defendant bank to confirm the sale on the basis of recovery certificate and not to interfere with the possession of the respondents No. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) of the disputed land. It appears that the first appellate court has failed to consider that auction has already been confirmed and possession of the disputed land has already been delivered to the appellants and, therefore, no injunction could have been granted. 33. So far as issues/questions No. (e) and (f) are concerned, in view of the aforesaid discussion on questions No. (a), (c) and (h) and my findings that a suit for injunction simplicitor is not maintainable, these questions are answered accordingly. 34. The last question No. (g) which has been framed by my learned predecessor is whether in absence of any relief for setting aside the sale within the period of limitation, a suit for permanent injunction was barred. In this regard, it may be observed that respondents No. 1 and 2 had filed a suit for permanent injunction only and no relief was sought for setting aside the sale, therefore, there is no question of limitation for filing the suit for injunction. 35. I have gone through the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents. The same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 36. In Mahadeo Prasad Singh’s case (supra), one Matadin was a fixed rate tenant of the plots in dispute; one Ram Naresh Singh brother of appellant no.1, namely, Mahadev Prasad Singh obtained a money decree against Matadin on 18.02.1953 from the Judge Small Causes Court, Varanasi; Ram Naresh Singh sought to execute the decree. 36. In Mahadeo Prasad Singh’s case (supra), one Matadin was a fixed rate tenant of the plots in dispute; one Ram Naresh Singh brother of appellant no.1, namely, Mahadev Prasad Singh obtained a money decree against Matadin on 18.02.1953 from the Judge Small Causes Court, Varanasi; Ram Naresh Singh sought to execute the decree. As a consequence, the decree was transferred from the Court of Judge Small Causes Court to the court of munsif, Varanasi for execution. The plots in question were to be in auction by the executing court and were purchased by decree holder on 20th July, 1956. The same was confirmed on 29th August, 1956 and the sale certificate was issued. The decree holder purchaser, Ram Naresh Singh, took delivery of possession over the plots in question. Thereafter, he further sold the plots to the appellant no.2 and respondents no.6 to 10. Matadin died in the year 1960 and, thereafter, his son, Ram Lochan instituted a suit on 14th June, 1961. In these circumstances, it was held that the decree holder has a right to execute the decree only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law in force at the time when execution was sought. The small causes court, in view of the prohibition contained in the C.P.C., had no power to execute its decree by sale of immovable property and, therefore, the court of munsif had no jurisdiction to execute the decree or sale of immovable property of judgment debtor. 37. In Urmila Devi’s case (supra), the facts were that M/s N.C. Carpet Company a partnership firm was sanctioned limit facilities by Allahabad Bank and to secure the interest of the bank, Vijay Kumar Shekhari mortgaged properties by deposit of title deeds, on account of default in payment of the money the respondent bank filed a suit for recovery of the outstanding amount with interest which was consequently transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad. A recovery certificate was issued by the trade tax department for the recovery of the sales tax dues, as arrears of land revenue and consequently the plot which was mortgaged by M/s N.C. Carpet Company in favour of the bank was put to auction and the sale was confirmed and a sale certificate was issued under Rule 285-M of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952. In those circumstances, the dispute was whether right of State Government to realise arrears of trade tax would take precedence over right of bank to proceed property of borrowers mortgaged in favour of the bank by deposit of title deed. The same is not the situation in the present case. 38. In view of the aforesaid facts of the case, as a matter of fact the questions which have been framed by my learned predecessor are essentially questions of fact and are not questions of law. A perusal of the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial judge clearly show that all these points which have been raised by the respondents are questions of fact and are not questions of law. 39. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 19th July, 2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Sultanpur, in Civil Appeal No. 02 of 1997 is set aside. 40. No order as to costs. 41. Lower court record be sent back forthwith.