ORDER :- This revision is directed against an order of the District Judge of Jaunpur dated 9th April, 1977 in Execution Case No. 1 of 1975. The learned District Judge dismissed the application 27/C under O.XXI, R.59(b) C.P.C. praying for the stay of the confirmation of sale of the house.

2. Firm Ramjas Rolling Mills, Uchehra, district Satna and Dharam Chand, opposite parties 1 and 2, in this revision, obtained a decree for the recovery of Rs. 15,029-32 against opposite parties 3 to 7 and also against the late Sri Ram Kadam, father of opposite parties 6 to 13, from the Court of the District Judge, Satna, on 18-1-1974. The decree was transferred for execution to the court of the District Judge, Jaunpur. One house and an Ahata situate in Tehsil Shahganj were attached by the order of the District Judge, Jaunpur. Smt. Shyama Devi, wife of Ram Kadam and mother of opposite parties 6 to 13 and one Smt. Chandrawati Devi filed an objection under O.XXI, R.58, C.P.C. in respect of the properties attached in execution of the aforesaid decree. The learned District Judge by his order dated 3-1-1976 allowed the claim of the applicant in part and released the Ahata from the attachment but rejected the objections relating to the disputed house under O.XXI, R.58 C.P.C. After the disposal of the aforesaid objection the disputed house was auctioned on 10-1-1977. Thereafter an application 27/C was moved by Smt. Shyama Devi under O.XXI, R.59(b) C.P.C. for staying the confirmation of the auction sale of the disputed house on the allegation that she had filed a civil suit No. 1 of 1977 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaunpur under O.XXI, R.63, C.P.C. The application having been dismissed the present revision was filed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the court below was in error in not granting the prayer made in the application 27/C. Reliance was placed on the provisions of O.XXI, R.59(b), C.P.C. which reads as follows :-

"Where before the claim was preferred or the objection was made, the property attached had already been advertised for sale, the Court may -

(a) ..…..

(b) if the property is immoveable, make an order that, pending the adjudication of the claim or objection, the property shall not be sold, or, that pending such adjudication, the property may be sold but the sale shall not be confirmed, and any such order may be made subject to such term and condition as to security or otherwise the Court thinks fit." It was contended that where the attached property was immovable one, and an objection or a claim was made and it remained pending, the property could not be sold and even if sold its sale could not be confirmed until the disposal of the claim or the objection. In the present case immovable property had been attached and the claim had not been finally disposed of. Learned counsel for the opposite parties raised a twofold objection to this argument. Firstly, it was stated that O.XXI, R.59(b) of the Code was not applicable in the present case and secondly, the reference therein was to an objection or a claim and not to any suit. In other words, it was contended that the provisions of R.59(b) were not at all attracted to the facts of the present case.

4. The provisions of R.59(b) were introduced by the Civil P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act. Section 97(q) of the Amendment Act has specifically provided amongst other things that the provisions of R.59 of O.XXI, as amended, or substituted or inserted by S.72 of the Amendment Act shall not apply to or affect (i) any attachment subsisting immediately before the commencement of S.72 of the Amendment Act, on (ii) any suit instituted before such commencement under R.63 of O.XXI to establish a right to attach property or (iii) any proceeding to set aside the sale of immovable property, and every such attachment, suit or proceeding shall be continued as if the said S.72 had not come into force. It is, therefore, clear that the provisions of R.5

Click Here to Read the rest of this document