JUDGMENT

Ghulam Hasan, J - This revision application is by the defendant in a suit for profits under Section 108(15), Oudh Rent Act. It appears that the suit for profits was decreed against the defendants by the Assistant Collector whose decision on appeal was confirmed by the District Judge. A second rent appeal (RAJ BAHADUR SINGH V. PIRTHVIPAL REPORTED IN, A.I.R. 1942 OUDH 22 was filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree in this Court on 16th July 1988. This appeal has been disposed of by me by a separate judgment of today's date. On 6th February 1989, the defendant-appellant applied for stay of execution of the decree and obtained an interim order from this Court. The interim order was despatched to the Honorary Assistant Collector, Pandit Kanhaiya Lal Shukla, who had decreed the suit for profits. It appears from a reference to the record that Pandit Kanhaiya Lal did not communicate the orders to the Assistant Collector, Mr. Kizvi, in whose Court sale proceedings in execution of the decree were pending. Pandit Kanhaiya Lal Shukla communicated the said order only on 24th March 1989, saying J that he had ceased to function as an Assistant Collector, that the order was misplaced in his office and so he had not submitted it earlier for which he was sorry. The sale took place on 20th August 1938, and was confirmed on 14th March 1989 by an order passed by Mr. Rizvi in which he also stated that "till this date no order has come from the Hon'ble Chief Court and none brought by the judgment-debtor for this case." It is perfectly clear from the proceedings that Mr. Rizvi was not aware of the stay order passed by this Court and Pandit Kanhaiya Lal Shukla, Honorary Assistant Collector, was clearly to blame for this. The decree-holders themselves purchased the property in the auction sale.

2. It is contended on behalf of the defendant that the sale proceedings are wholly void and without jurisdiction even though Mr. Rizvi had not been apprised of the said order passed by this Court. Nobody appears to oppose this revision application on behalf of the plaintiffs-opposite parties, who have been served with notices. I am of opinion that this revision petition must be allowed. There is ample authority in support of the proposition that a stay order passed by a higher Court takes effect from the date on which it is pronounced and not on the date on which it is communicated. It has also been held in these cases that the sale held despite the passing of such a stay order even though the same is not communicated, is ultra vires : see the following, Nand Kishore v. Shadi Ram, A.I.R. 1926 All. 457, Ma Ti v. Ma Thit, A.I.R. 1933 Rang 416, Hukum Chand Boid v. Kamalanand Singh33 Cal. 927 and Khan Chand v. Mt. Jawandi, A.I.R. 1917 Lah. 336. I, therefore, set aside the order confirming the sale and allow the revision application. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.