The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding sale stay, property descriptions, and selling property in small parcels.

Burn, J.

1. This appeal is from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly. in E.A. No. 8 of 1935 dismissing the appellants application, under Order 21, Rule 90 and Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside a sale held in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 6 of 1927. The final decree in the suit was passed on 23rd February, 1933 and the sale was held on 28th November, 1934. Several irregularities were alleged on behalf of the judgment-debtor. The learned Subordinate Judge held that no irregularities had been made out and also held that the lands had been sold for reasonable prices and that therefore no substantial loss had been caused. He therefore dismissed the petition.

2. In appeal Mr. Sitarama Rao for the appellant has pressed before us strongly the contention that the sale was illegal. The sale was fixed for 21st November, 1934. On the 21st of November, 1934, the judgment-debtor put in an application under Order 41, Rule 6, Sub-rule (2) praying that the sale might be stayed for two months on the ground that appeals were pending against the final decree and from an order of the Court on the application to set aside the preliminary decree in the suit The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed this petition on 28th November, 1934, and the sale was held on the same day. Mr. Sitarama Rao referring to the wording of Order 41, Rule 6, Sub-rule (2) contends that the Court has no option but to grant stay of sale on such terms as to giving security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit. We think that this contention is well founded. Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyar for the respondent has referred us to a decision reported in Babu Harnarain Sahi v. Sadhu Govind Rai AIR1932All551 . In that case Mr. justice Kendall expressed the opinion that Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6 does not impose on the Court which ordered the sale an obligation to stay the same merely because the property which is to be sold is immovable property. With all respect to the learned Judge we are unable to agree. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 6 is quite clear that when an order has been made for the sale of immovable property in execution of a decree and an appeal is pending from such decree, the sale, shall, on the application of the judgment-debtor to the Court which made the order, be stayed on such terms as to giving security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit until the appeal is disposed of. We can see no justification for supposing that this rule means anything else than what it says. Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyar points out the danger that the judgment-debtor will be in a position to paralyse the executing Court, that he will be able to lie by until the last moment, then come up just when the sale is going to take place and get it stopped. We think there is sufficient answer to this in the provision that the Court may impose such terms as to giving security or otherwise as it thinks fit. If the Court thinks that the application has been designedly delayed, the Court can deal with it by prescribing conditions. If the judgment-debtor appears only on the morning to which the sale is posted, the Court has a discretion to say for example, that the sale will be stayed if the judgment-debtor produced the amount for which the sale is going to be held within half an hour or one hour. There is no limit to the discretion of the Court in imposing terms and that the Court is not without power to deal with a vexatious judgment-debtor in this way if the Court is obliged to stay a sale when such an application is made is quite clear from the terms of Order 41, Rule 6, Sub-rule (2). The learned Judge was therefore wrong when on 28th November, 1934, he thought he had discretion to stay or refuse to stay the sale. When the Code says the executing Court shall not sell in certain circumstances and the Court nevertheless proceeds to sell, the Court has committed in our opinion, what is more than an irregularity. It amounts clearly to an illegality. The learned Subordinate Judge ought