Wanchoo, C.J—This is a revision by Hans Raj against the order of the District Judge, Ganganagar, and arises in the following circumstances.

2. Hansraj had brought a suit on a mortgage against Satnarain opposite party, and his father Prahlad Rai. In that suit Satnarains mother acted his guardian. That suit was decreed against both Prahlad Rai and Sat Narain in 1951. About two years later, Satnarain brought the suit, out of which the present proceedings have arisen, through another next friend Kishangopal. It is immaterial for present purposes to mention the case put forward by Satnarain in detail, suffice it to say that Satnarain prayed that the decree passed against him in the earlier suit in favour of Hansraj be declared to be null and void, and his share in the house mortgaged be declared to be not liable to sale in that decree. Along with his plaint, Satnarain made an application which has given rise to the present proceedings. The last paragraph (Our translation) of that application reads as follows: —

"Consequently the application is presented under O.XXXIX, r. 1, and it is prayed that till the decision of the suit, execution proceedings should be stayed, and defendant No. 1, namely Hansraj, be forbidden from taking further proceedings in execution."

It may be mentioned that the original decree was passed by this very court in favour of Hansraj, and was under execution in the same court. Consequently, the court treated this application as one under O. XXI, r. 29, even though it was mentioned in the last part of the application, translated by us above, that it was under O. XXXIX, r. 1 C.P.C.

3. The prayers were! two fold, namely for stay of execution, which could, if at all, be made under O. XXI, r. 29, and (2) for temporary injunction which could, of course, be granted under O.39, r I. The notice that was issued by the court on 10/3/53 to Hansraj was to show cause why execution proceedings should not be stayed. This in our opinion, clearly showed that the court related it as an application under O. XXI, r, 29. Whether the court could do so or not will be considered by us shortly. The matter was gone into on the 20th of May, 1953, arid the court passed an order on that date in the following terms: —

"If the plaintiff(i.e. Satnarain) gave security for the decretal amount to the effect that if the suit is dismissed, the surety will pay the decretal amount, execution will be stayed, security to be deposited by the next date, otherwise execution would continue."

The next date was 28tb of July, 1953, and by this date no security had been deposited, Therefore, the court ordered on that day that as no security had been deposited, execution would continue.

4 Thereafter,there was an appeal to the District Judge by Satnarain under O. XLIII.r. l(r) He treated the order of the 20th May, 1953, as an order under O. XXXIX, and the contention on his behalf was that that part of the order, which required that he should give security, was improper, and could not be passed under O. XXXIX, and therefore the court was wrong in allowing execution to proceed after the 28th of July, 1953. The appeal was sought to be treated within time from the 28th of July, 1953 because Satnarain claimed that he was aggrieved only when the court ordered that execution might go on.

5. The District Judge came to the conclusion that the order of the 20th of May. 1953, was under O. XXXIX. He also held that it was not open to the court to pass any order as to security in an order under O. XXXIX. No question of limitation seems to have been raised before District Judge, and therefore he allowed the appeal, and set aside that part of the order of the 20th of May, 1953, which required the applicant Satnarain to deposit security. The final result was that the order of the 28th July, 1953, also fell through, and Satnarain got stay of execution without giving any security Hansraj has come to this Court in revision against this order of the District Judge.

6. The first and the most

Click Here to Read the rest of this document