1. This purports to be an appeal against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Pilibhit. The appellant was a judgment-debtor. He made an application under Section 5, Agriculturists' Belief Act of 1934 that the decree should be converted into an instalment decree. Thereafter he made an application to the Court executing the original decree that the sale in execution of that decree should be stayed. The Court executing the decree was also that of the Subordinate Judge of Pilibhit. The learned Judge passed this order, 'No good ground. Rejected'. A preliminary objection has been taken that there is no appeal provided against an order refusing to stay a sale in execution of a decree. It seems to us, however, although the contention of the respondent is good upon this point, that we should interfere in this matter in exercise of our jurisdiction by way of revision. The result of the order refusing to stay the sale was this that once the sale had taken place and had been confirmed, the judgment-debtor would have had no redress under Section 5, Agriculturists' Belief Act, because he would have lost his property and the original decree would have been satisfied. It has been argued that this is not a proper case for interference in revision, because the order of the Court below did not finally decide any case between the parties.
2. We quite agree that in the majority of instances a mere order refusing to postpone the sale or any other order of postponement would not be a final decision of what may be described as a case between the parties. We think however that this particular matter before us is an exception, because the Court by refusing to postpone the sale did decide a substantial question in issue. On an examination of the order passed and considering the circumstances of the case, we do not think that the Court could really have gone into the matter in issue or exercised any real jurisdiction. No grounds are given for refusing to pass an order which in the circumstances, it seems it us, would have been the ordinary order to pass. That being so we think that we should interfere. We have decided in the exercise of our jurisdiction to direct that the sale shall not be confirmed until the Court has passed an order on the application under Section 5, Agriculturists' Belief Act. If under that section the Court converts the original decree to a decree for instalments, the sale should not be confirmed. If on the other hand the Court holds that the judgment-debtor was not an agriculturist to whom the Act applies or for some other reason decides that no decree for instalments should be passed, then proceedings for the confirmation of the sale may continue as they would have done if this order by us had not been passed. The parties will bear their own cost in this Court.