Ayyasamy Gounder vs Kesavamoorthy and others

Balasubrahmanyan, J.—The appellant is the judgment-debtor. His appeal is against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of

Coimbatore dismissing his application under S.3 of the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Ordinance, 1975 which was later

enacted as the Tamil Nadu Act X of 1975. The appellant filed the application in the following circumstances. There was a mortgage decree against

him in enforcement of which the mortgaged property was brought to sale. Three persons, Kesavamoorthy, Mayangammal and Subbalakshmi

purchased the property in Court auction. For setting aside this sale, the appellant filed a petition under O.21, R.90, C.P.C. Pending that application

the appellant moved the executing Court for stay, under S.3 of the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Ordinance, 1975. S.3

of this Act runs as follows:

No suit for the recovery of a debt shall be instituted, no application for the execution of a decree for payment of money passed in a suit for the

recovery of a debt.........shall be instituted or made, against any agriculturists in any civil or revenue Court before the expiry of a year from the date

of the commencement of this Act.

The appellant claimed that he was an agriculturist entitled to the benefits conferred under S.3 of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed

the application on the score that S.3 was inapplicable to the facts of the present case According to the learned Judge, the section applies only to

bar ""an application for the execution of a decree for payment of money"". In this view, he dismissed the appellant''s application.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits before me that the application filed by him for setting aside the sale under O. 21, R.90, C.P.C., must

be regarded as an application for execution of a decree for payment of money. I must reject this argument as unsound. S.4 of the Tamil Nadu

Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Ordinance, 1975, provides that all further proceedings in suits and applications of the nature mentioned

in S.3 in which relief is claimed against an agriculturist shall stand stayed until the expiry of a year from the date of the commencement of the Act.

But, neither S.3 nor S.4 can apply to the present case where there is no application, as such, for execution of a decree for payment of money. The

application for execution of the decree for payment of money has already been ordered in this case, and it was only on the execution application

being ordered that the property had been brought to sale. An application to set aside the sale under O.21, R.90, C.P.C., cannot be regarded as an

application for the execution of a decree for payment of money within the meaning of Ss. 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists

(Temporary Relief) Ordinance, 1975. The fact that an application for setting aside the sale if pending can be no ground for stay of proceedings

under S.4 of the said Act. In my view, the appellant''s application invoking the provisions of S.3 of the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists

(Temporary Relief) Ordinance, 1975, was rightly dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge. There are no merits in this appeal. The appeal is

dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.