This case has given me some difficulty mainly because of an omnibus application of a set of laws in force in a particular State to another State which had its own set of corresponding laws differing in material particulars, without any attempt to make necessary amendments and alterations.

There is no dispute as to the facts. The Appellant is one of the judgment-debtors and the Respondent is the decree-holder in O.S.No.341 of 1944 on the file of the Chief Court of Pudukottai which was a suit to recover the amount due in respect of three deposits. The decree was passed on 31st March, 1945. On behalf of the defendants, a plea was raised that they would be entitled to relief under the provisions of the Pudukottai Agriculturists’ Relief Regulations XV of 1938. The Court held that the defendants could not be considered to be agriculturists and rejected the plea. There was an appeal by the defendants which was dismissed. The particular plea under the above Regulation was not pressed before the appellate Court. In 1947, the State of Pudukottai was merged in British India and thereafter began to be administered as part of the Province of Madras. Nevertheless, the laws in force in that State continued in force until eventually the Madras Merged States (Laws) Act XXXV of 1949 was passed by which certain Acts both of the Central Legislature and of Madras were made applicable to the territory which was once Pudukottai State from 1st January, 1950, and the corresponding laws of the Pudukottai State were repealed. It is necessary to refer to the following sections of this Act:

“So much of the enactments specified in the First Schedule as extends to the Province of Madras and relates to matters with respect to which the Provincial Legislature has power to make laws for the Province, is hereby extended to and shall be in force, in the merged State or States specified in the corresponding entry in the first column thereof.

* * * *

If, immediately before the commencement of this Act, there is in force in any merged State, an Act, Ordinance, Regulation or other law corresponding to an enactment specified in the First Schedule, whether such Act, Ordinance, Regulation or other law is in force by virtue of an Order under the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947, or by virtue of any other legislative power, such corresponding law shall, upon the commencement of this Act, stand repealed to the extent to which the law relates to matters with respect to which the Provincial Legislature has power to make laws for the Province.”

One of the enactments mentioned in the schedule is Madras Act IV of 1938, the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act.

The decree in O.S.No.341 of 1944 was being executed by means of successive petitions, the last of which was E.P.No.274 of 1950. The appellant before us who was impleaded as the seventh defendant on the death of his father, the first defendant filed an application, E.A.No.1152 of 1950 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Pudukottai under section 20 of the Madras Agriculturists’ Relief Act for stay of execution proceedings in E.P.No.274 of 1950 to enable him to file an application under section 19 of that Act. The respondent-decree-holder opposed the application ‘inter alia‘on the ground that the application was incompetent and misconceived. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the Madras Agriculturists’ Relief Act was not applicable to the case and dismissed the application with costs, without going into the merits. His decision was based mainly on the saving provisions contained in clause (a) of section 6(1) of the Merged States Act, which runs thus:

“The repeal by section 5 of this Act. of any corresponding law in force in any merged State immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall not affect

(a) the previous operation of any such law.”

He held inasmuch as the debt in question had already been dealt with in the suit under the Pudukottai Regulation, it was a case in which the previous law ha