AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
11 paragraphs · 215 wordsStodart, J.—The District Munsif is clearly right.
The first application to the Board though nominally filed by the fourth defendant was clearly adopted by all the defendants. For they applied for
and got stay of execution from the District Munsif u/s 25 of the Debt Conciliation Act on the strength of that application.
It is also argued that having made another application to the Board, this time through the second defendant, the judgment-debtors are again
entitled to stay.
To admit such a proposition would lead to absurd results. In the Debt Conciliation Act there is nothing to prevent a debtor filing one application
after another and u/s 25 of the Act he can obtain stay of a suit or other proceedings so long as an application is pending before the Board. When
he files an application before the Board a little time must elapse before it is dismissed. In that time u/s 25 he can obtain stay of proceedings in suits
and other proceedings and so on indefinitely without limit of time, and obviously without any great expense.
In my opinion this is not the intention of the law. A judgment-debtor is not entitled to obtain stay u/s 25 of any individual suit or proceedings
more than once. Petition is dismissed.