1. This is an appeal against the order of a Revenue Officer empowered to hear rent suits under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act who, in execution of the decree of another Deputy Collector for Rs. 11,103 and odd, passed an order in execution that a warrant of arrest against the judgment-debtor returnable by the 25th February should be issued in spite of the judgment-debtor's objections. Those objections as far as we have been able to understand them have been repeated here, and the first is that the decree for rent of Kairo, Perganah Khukra, is not a decree for the rent of the entire tenure. The learned Deputy Collector unnecessarily discusses this point, and incidentally misreads the decision of this Court in Chandra Nath Tewari v. Protap Udai Nath Sake 23 Ind. Cas. 105 : 18 C.W.N. 170. But with that we have nothing to do, inasmuch as the executing Court is not entitled to go beyond the decree, and the decree shows that the rent was for the entire village, which is certainly an entire unit for agricultural purposes. There is, therefore, no reason why the decree should not be executed under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act.
2. Then Section 184 is sought to be ignored by the appellant and he carries this on to Section 210, then comes back to Section 208 and so seeks to read the Act backwards. The procedure under the Act seems to be perfectly simple. The first section which deals with it is Section 184, which lays down that the process of execution may be issued against either the person or property of the judgment-debtor and shall not be issued simultaneously against both the person and property. Then Section 191 (2), which is relied upon by the appellant, has nothing whatever to do with the present question before us. That refers to a person who is arrested on a decree for money. Then on reference to Section 139, which the appellant also relies upon, a suit referred to in Clause (7) would clearly seem to be a suit which is not for rent on account of agricultural land but a suit for recovery of money from defaulting agents and others. Then Section 208 (2) provides that when a warrant of execution has been issued under this Chapter against the person or moveable property of the judgment-debtor, that is, a warrant under Section 184, no application shall be received under Sub-section (1) of Section 208 while such warrant remains in force. Nothing can be clearer than this, that a warrant of arrest may precede everything else and that it stays proceedings for sale of the tenure. The provision of Section 210, giving the Deputy Commissioner protective jurisdiction in favour of agriculturists whose tenures and holdings have been sold in pursuance of Section 208, has nothing whatever to do with the question before us; and we find that all the arguments adduced before us have been unnecessary and mostly irrelevant, and that from the time that has elapsed since those decrees were first made it would appear that the judgment-debtor is purposely endeavouring to throw every possible technical legal objection in the way of getting out of paying rent which has been declared to be honestly due from him. This is a state of things which we cannot encourage.
3. The appeal is dismissed with costs. We assess the hearing fee at four gold mohurs as the value of the decree is upwards of Rs. 5,000.
4. There is a Rule connected with this appeal, namely, Rule No. 170 which was issued to show cause why the warrant of arrest should not be set aside as being made without jurisdiction under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. We cannot find that any question of jurisdiction arises under that Act and this Rule must be discharged with costs, two gold mohurs.
5. The record will be sent down without delay.