Yashoda Nandan, J. - (1.)A civil suit was decreed for recovery of Rs. 11,925/- along with the pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum against the applicant by the learned Civil Judge Ghazi-pur on 15th October, 1974. The applicant appealed against the decree of the learned Civil Judge and the appeal was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1975. While the appeal was pending, U. P. Ordinance No 13 of 1977 was promulgated and under the provisions of that Ordinance the hearing of the appeal was stayed by order dated 27th May, 1976, since the applicant-ap pellant was a "small farmer" for the purpose of that Ordinance possessing less than 2 Hectares of land. U. P. Act No. 13 of 1977 was replaced by U. P. Debt Relief Act, 1977 (U. P. Act, No. 4 of 1977). After coming into force of the U. P. Act No. 4 of 1977, the applicant seems to have applied either for the stay of the continuance of the suit or the abatement of the suit or appeal under Section 22(b) of the Act. The application was dismissed by the Court below which held that Section 22(b) of the Act had no application to an appeal. Section 22 of the said Act runs as under: - "22. Bar to certain suits. - Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force - (a) No civil or revenue Court shall entertain a suit, application or proceeding against a small farmer in respect of any debt to which the provisions of this Chapter apply; (b) Every such suit, application or proceeding pending before any such Court on the date of commencement of this Act shall abate; (c) No decree of a Civil Court in relation to the debt to which the provisions of this Chapter apply shall be executed." It has been consistently held not only by this Hon'ble Court but also by the Supreme Court that an appeal is merely a continuance of the suit giving rise to it. Moreover, the word "proceeding" occurring in sub-section (b) of Sec tion 22 is wide enough to include an appeal. In my opinion a contrary view taken by the Court below that Section 22(b) of the Act had no application to pending appeals, is not legally justifiable. It may be mentioned here that sub-section (c) of Section 22 as quoted above renders in executable any decree of a Civil Court in relation to a debt to which the provision of Chapter IV applies. Even appellate decrees in relation to a debt to which Chapter IV applies consequently are rendered in executable as a result of operation of Section 22(c). If it is held that Section 22(b) did not apply to the pending appeals, decrees passed by the appellate Courts in relation to debts to which Chapter IV of the Act applies, would be futile and meaningless since they would be in executable, though passed. There are thus sound reasons for holding that Section 22(b) of the Act does apply to proceedings, pending in appeal in respect of debts to which Chapter IV of the Act is applicable. In my opinion, the Court below has clearly misconstrued Section 22(b) and has no jurisdiction to proceed to decide the appeal on merits. For the reasons given, this revision is allowed and the impugned order of the Court below dated 20th August, 1977 is set aside. The case will go back to the Court below for deciding as to whether the decree under challenge before it in appeal relates to a debt to which Chapter IV of the Act applies. In case it is an appeal in respect of a debt to which Chapter IV applies, the Court below will pass appropriate order in accordance with law and the observations contained in this judgment. Since no one appeared to oppose this revision, there shall be no order as to costs.