This is a revision against the order of the lower Court dismissing the application under section 20 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (hereinafter called the Act) for stay of the execution of the decree in O.S.No.533 of 1933. The learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that a “revision” is not maintainable as an appeal lies against the order of the lower Court. To appreciate his contention, some of the relevant facts may be stated.

The respondent, Ramachandra Reddiar. filed O.S.No.553 of 1933 on the file of the District Munsif of Arni on a promissory note executed by the petitioners father. To that suit the petitioner’s father was the first defendant, the petitioner was the fourth defendant and his other brothers were impleaded as defendants 2, 3 and 5. The respondent obtained a decree on 3rd August, 1934. After the passing of the Act, the fifth defendant, one of the sons, filed Application No.1211 of 1943 and obtained stay of execution of 7th September, 1943. He also filed an application I.A.No.1605 of 1943 under section 19 of the Act and on 21st March, 1944, the decree was scaled down under the Act. After some infructuous attempts at execution, the respondent ultimately filed F.P.No.728 of 1945 and attached the petitioner’s property and is now bringing them to sale. The petitioner alleging that he was separated from the other members of the family under a registered deed of partition of the year 1931, filed E.A.No.176 of 1946 for stay under section 20 of the Act to enable him to file an application for scaling down the decree debt. The learned District Munsif dismissed the present application mainly on the ground that successive applications by different judgment-debtors are not maintainable. He held, as the petitioner was a joint debtor and as the debt has already been scaled down by the Court on an application filed by one of the joint debtors, no further scaling down was permissible under the Act. The fourth defendant has preferred the present revision against that order.

Learned counsel for the respondent contended that an appeal lies against that order under section 20 of the Act and therefore the revision is not maintainable. In Swaminatha Odayar v. Srinivasa Aiyar1,. Burn and Stodart, JJ., held that an order passed refusing stay of execution under section 20 of the Act is not appealable. The ratio decidendi for the judgment is found in the following passages. At page 497 the learned Judges observed:

“The question raised under section 20 is, we think, not a question between the parties to the decree at all. As we have already indicated, section 19 of the Madras Act IV of 1938 provides for the application of the judgment-debtor for the scaling down of the decree and section 20 we consider-to be a provision merely ancillary to section 19.”

Later on they add:

“A reading of section 20 by itself seems to us to indicate clearly that the only question which arises under that section is a question between the executing Court and the applicant and not a question between the parties to the decree.”

It is contended that this judgment is no longer good law in view of the later Privy Council decisions in Adikappa Chettiar v. Chandrasekhara Thevar2. It is necessary to state briefly the facts of that case to appreciate this contention. On 15th September, 1925, a final decree was passed in a mortgage suit. The decree-holder took out execution petition No.79 of 1933 to enforce the final decree and certain of the mortgaged properties were advertised to sale. But before the sale had been effected, the Act was passed in March 1938. On 8th July, 1938.. the judgment-debor filed E.A.No.237 of 1938 in E.P.No.79 of 1933 under sections 20, 19, and 8 of the Act and sections 47 and 151, Civil Procedure Code. On 3rd August, 1938, the judgment-debtor has made an independent application, I.A.No.361 of 1938, for amending the decree in accordance with the provisions of the Act. E.A. No.237 of 1938 was dismissed on the ground

Click Here to Read the rest of this document