CHAKRAVARTTI, J. :- These are two Rules directed against the same order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bankura, on 23rd August 1946, whereby he stayed further proceedings in a mortgage suit, purporting to act under S. 33(a), Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The learned Judge has held that the award pleaded by the mortgagor as a bar to the suit was without jurisdiction and void. But he had also held that if the award was void, the proceedings before the Board were in the eye of law still pending and consequently the mortgage suit was liable to be stayed under the provisions of S. 33.

2. Rule 1747 of 1946 was taken out by the mortgagee and his complaint is that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge that the suit must be stayed is erroneous.

3. Rule 1913 of 1946 was taken out by the mortgagor and he challenges the decision of the learned Judge that the award was without jurisdiction and void.

4. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, it is necessary to refer to the facts in some detail. It appears that the transactions between the parties were numerous and of a complicated character. The first transaction was on 6th August 1920, when