Proceedings under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Temporary Postponement of Execution of Decrees Act, 1956 are not execution proceedings but are in substance, independent original proceedings undertaken by the judgment-debtor for assertion of substantive rights. To such proceedings, the provisions of Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply by reason of the provisions contained in Section 141 of the Code which provides that the procedure provided in the Code with regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of Civil jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT - 1. This revisional application arises out of proceedings which were initialed by the petitioner (judgment-debtor) under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Temporary Postponement of Execution of Decrees Act, 1956 (M. P. Act No. V of 1956), which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act. On the 16th of June, 1960, the respondent filed a darkhast to execute the decree, which he had obtained against the petitioner for the refund of earnest money. On the 22nd of July, 1960, the petitioner filed an application for stay of execution of the decree under Section 3 (1) of the Act, which reads thus:

"All proceedings in execution of any decree for money, or proceedings for making final any preliminary decree for foreclosure or sale, or proceedings in execution of any final decree for sale, passed by a Civil Court on the basis of a liability incurred before this Act comes into force, in which a Judgment-debtor or defendant, as the case may be is on the date this Act comes into, force, an agriculturist, shall be stayed against such judgment-debtor or defendant, on an application made by him in this behalf during the period this Act remains in force."

On 21st of December, 1961, the application was dismissed for default, as the petitioner was absent. After the application was so dismissed, the petitioner adopted two different but parallel proceedings, one of them being an application for the restoration of the application which was dismissed for default and the other being the institution of a similar but fresh application The fresh application was filed on the 4th of January, 1962, whereas the application for restoration was filed on the 12th of January, 1962. On the 14th of February, 1962, the application for restoration was dismissed partly on the ground that an application under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable and partly for the reason that there was no sufficient cause for the absence of the petitioner on the 21st of December 1961. On the 27th of September 1962 the fresh application was also dismissed for the obviously inconsistent reason that Order 9, Rule 9 would govern applications filed under Section 3 of the Act and as the petitioner had not preferred an appeal against the older dated 14th February 1962, the fresh application under Section 3 was not maintainable. It is against this order that the present revision application has been filed.

2. The main question, which arises in this revision application is whether the provisions contained in Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to applications which are filed under Section 3 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Temporary Postponement of Execution of Decrees Act, 1956. If the proceedings initiated by an application filed under Section 3 of the Act are in the nature of execution proceedings, then it is indisputable that the provisions of Order 9 will not be attracted. On the other hand, if the proceedings, which a judgment-debtor takes under Section 3 of the Act, are not in the nature of execution proceedings, but are in the nature of substantive original proceedings, then it would be equally clear that the provisions of Order 9 would apply to the proceedings.

3. Mr. Ghate, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, contends that Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application to the proceedings initiated by the judgment-debtor under Section 3 (1) of the Act, because, the proceedings which Section 3 contemplates are in form and Sub-stance execution proceedings and it is settled law that the provisions contained in Order 9 do not apply to execution proceedings. Now, what is provided by Section 3 (1) of the Act is that proceedings in execution of certain decrees shall be stayed if the decree is passed by a Civil Court on the basis of a liability which is incurred before the date on which the Act came into force, and if the judgment-debtor is an agriculturist. It seems to the difficult to take the view that the proceedings cont

Click Here to Read the rest of this document