T.K. Sambanda Chetty vs Muthu Chettiar

Horwill, J.—When C.M.P. No. 7194 of 1941 was posted for disposal I found it easier to hear the civil revision petition and dispose of that

than to pass suitable orders on the interlocutory applications pending disposal of the civil revision petition at some future date. I have therefore

heard arguments in the main application, C.R.P. No. 2685 of 1941.

The petitioner put in an application u/s 20 of Madras Act IV of 1938, asking the Court to stay execution as he was desirous of filing an

application u/s 19 of the Act to scale down the decree. The learned Munsif said that the petitioner had ample opportunities in a prior application to

make such a request and that he must be considered to have waived his rights. He therefore dismissed the petitioner''s application. The Act does

not however compel a judgment-debtor to make an application at an early stage and so he cannot be deemed to have waived his rights because he

did not do so. He can make his application at any stage and even though it be not made in good faith, the terms of Section 20 leave no discretion

to the Court to reject it. The right the petitioner has to have the execution stayed pending the filing of an application u/s 19 he possesses at all times

and under all circumstances. Section 20 says that

the Court executing the decree shall on application stay the proceedings until the Court which passed the decree has passed orders on an

application made or to be made u/s 19.

The only modification of that rule is where the application u/s 19 has been disposed of or where an application u/s 19 is not made within sixty days

of the application for stay. In such cases, the Court may proceed with the execution.

It has been argued for the respondent that the order might be made conditional; but Section 20 does not permit of a conditional order being

made; for if the condition is not fulfilled, Section 20 still makes it peremptory to stay. So the imposing of a condition would be infructuous. The best

that can be done for the respondent under the circumstances is to direct the District Munsif to dispose of the application u/s 19, which I understand

was made yesterday, as expeditiously as possible.

This civil revision petition is therefore allowed with costs. No orders are necessary on C.M.Ps. Nos. 7194 and 7435 of 1941.