( 1 ) THE respondent M/s. Jayshree Industries took a loan from the appellant-Gujarat State Financial Corporation and pledged and hypothecated machinery and other properties with the Corporation as a security for the said loan. The amount was payable by instalments. As the respondent failed to pay the instalments as agreed the appellant-Corporation filed Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 113 of 1977 in the District Court at Rajkot under sec. 31 of the State Financial corporations Act 1951 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act for enforcement of its claim by attachment and sale of the pledged and hypothecated properties of the opponent Jayshree Industries. The application was resisted by the responded. Pending the hearing of the said application the respondent gave an application. Ex. 42. requesting the District Judge to grant instalments. Another application Ex. 49 was also submitted to the learned District Judge raising a contention that the sale proclamation which was issued was illegal and may be canceled and a fresh sale proclamation may be issued. The applications were resisted by the Corporation. So far as the grant of instalments is concerned it was also contended that their is no provisions for grant of instalments in such proceedings and therefore. the respondent was not entitled to claim any instalments. It was also contented that the provisions of Order 20 Rule 11 C. P. C. do not apply to these proceedings and. therefore the respondent cannot claim any relief under the said provisions of the Civil that Procedure Code. As regards legality of the sale proclamation it was contended that it was quite legal. The learned District Judge who heard these applications held that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code which are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act can be availed of and instalments can be granted and accordingly be allowed that application and granted instalments He held that the sale proclamation was not shown to be illegal but as ins instalments were being granted to the opponent the application was allowed and the proclamation of sale was set aside and the sale was postponed. Being dissatisfied with the order of the learned District Judge the Gujarat State Financial Corporation has come in appeal before this court.

( 2 ) THE learned advocate Mr. V. B. Patel who appears on behalf of the appellant-Corporation drew my attention to sec. 46b of the Act which reads as follows:"the provisions of this Act and of any rules or orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in the memorandum or articles of association of an industrial concern or in any other instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this act but save as aforesaid the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being applicable to an industrial concern". Relying upon the above provisions in the Act he urged that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code cannot have any application except where specifically provided in the Act. lie drew my attention to sub-sec. (6) of sec. 32 which prosides that the District Judge shall proceed to investigate the claim of the Corporation in accordance with the provisions contained in the Civil Procedure Code 1908 in so far as such provisions may be applied thereto. He also drew Why attention to some other provisions in the Act which provide for following the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. He took me through the whole of the Act and submitted that there was no provision in the Act enabling the learned District Judge to grant instalments and hence looking to the Provisions of sec. 46 of the Act instalments cannot be granted by having recourse to Order 20 Rule 11 C. P. C. as done by the learned District Judge. In view of the above provisions of the Act which do not provide for grant of instalments or application