Attachment prior to the coming into force of the Ordinance.

R. Sengottuvelan, J.

1. C.R.P. No. 3290 of 1980 is filed by the judgment-debtor against the dismissal of his application R.E.A. No. 376 of 1980 in O.S. No. 45 of 1974 claiming benefits under Act (XIII of 1980) while C.R.P. No. 3291 of 1980 is filed against the dismissal of R.E.A. No. 407 of 1980 in E.P. No. 66 of 1980 in O.S. No. 45 of 1974, filed under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, to dismiss E.P. No. 66 of 1980 as the attachment of electric motor and pump-set is illegal. Since both the revisions arise out of the orders passed in the same execution petition and since the parties are the same, both the revisions are dealt with together. In C.R.P. No. 3291 of 1980, two contentions are raised by Mr. R.S. Venkatachari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The first contention is, that when an execution petition is stayed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Ordinance (I of 1975), attachment cannot be ordered to continue. In effect, his argument is that in view of Ordinance (I of 1975), by which all pending suits and execution proceedings against debtors will have to be stayed, the attachment already effected over the properties of, the debtor will have to be raised. Section 4 of Ordinance (I of 1975) runs thus:

All further proceedings in suits and applications of the nature mentioned in Section 3 in which relief is claimed against an agriculturist, not being proceedings for the amendment of pleadings or for the addition, substitution, or the striking off the parties, but otherwise inclusive of proceedings consequent on orders or decrees made in appeals revision petitions, or applications for review, shall subject to the next succeeding subsection, stand stayed until the expiry of a year from the date of the commencement of this Ordinance:

Provided that, in regard to property under attachment, the Court may pass such orders as it deems necessary for the custody or preservation of the property or for the sale of such property if it is subject to speedy or natural decay or if in respect of it the expenses of custody or preservation are considered excessive.

2. On application made by the defendant or the respondent or by all the defendants or all the respondents, as the case may be, the stay effected by Sub-section (1) in a suit or application shall be dissolved and the suit or application shall be proceeded with from the stage which had been reached when further proceedings in the suit or the application were stayed.

2. On a reading of Section 4 of Ordinance (I of 1975), it is seen that any suit or a proceeding in execution shall stand stayed until the expiry of a year from the date of the commencement of the Ordinance. Nowhere in the said Ordinance it is stated that the attachments effected prior to the coming into force of the Ordinance shall stand raised. On the other hand, the proviso to Section 4(1) of Ordinance (I of 1975) states that the Court may pass such orders as it deems necessary for the custody or preservation of the property under attachment. In view of Section 4(1) and the proviso there under, it cannot be said that the effect of Ordinance (I of 1975) is to raise the attachment already effected. Hence, this contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petition will have to be negative.

3. The second contention raised by Mr. R.S. Venkatachari is that the order closing E.P. No. 91 of 1974, on 27th January, 1975, without directing the attachment to continue is illegal inasmuch as the Court under Order 21, Rule 57, Civil Procedure Code, must while dismissing the Execution Petition, direct whether the attachment will continue or not and must also indicate the period upto which such attachment will continue or the date on which the attachment shall cease. In other words, his contention is that inasmuch as no period is mentioned in the order of the Court below, the same is illegal and the attachment cannot be said to be in force in pursuance of such an illegal order. H