At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE WADSWORTH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PATANJALI SASTRI
For the Appellant: R. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Messrs. P.V. Raghavan, K.M. Venkatavaradachariar, K.V. Ramachandra Ayyar, S. Krishnaswami, Advocates.
(Appeal (disposed of on 13-7-1942) against the order of the District Court of Chingleput dated 20-12-194
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
and made in M.P. No. 453 of 1937 in E.P. No. 16 of 1933 in O.S. No. 6 of 1929.)It seems to us clear that proceedings under O. 21, R. 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure are proceedings in execution which must necessarily be stayed when an order under S. 20 of Madras Act IV of 1938 has been passed, until the disposal of a pending application under S. 19. The fact that a sale held before 1st October 1937 cannot be set aside under Madras Act IV of 1938 does not justify the Court in going on with proceedings relating to such a sale, when all execution proceedings have been stayed. In such circumstances the order passed under O. 21, R. 90 is an illegal order and it must be set aside. The lower Court will be directed to dispose of the application under S. 19 at once and thereafter to hold a fresh enquiry into the petition under O. 21, R. 90. The appellant is entitled to costs in this appeal, payable by the decree-holder.
" 1942 (55) LW 531"