JUDGMENT

Baguley, J - This is an appeal against an order passed by the District Judge of Hanthawaddy rejecting an objection to a sale in execution proceedings taking place because the property had not been attached. The appellant also objected to the learned Judge having re-fused to stay proceedings until certain other judgment-debtors could be notified of the proceedings against them.

2. The history of this case starts with an action filed by the Imperial Bank of India against the K.N.C.L.V. and the C.A.R. Chettyar Firms. It is stated that certain title deeds had been deposited with the Bank as security for a promissory note, but only a simple money decree was asked for. By consent a decree was passed, payable in two instalments on 15th April 1933 and 15th April 1934, on condition that the defendants should deposit further security to the Bailiff of this Court. Such security was furnished, and title deeds deposited. The next step in the proceedings was taken on 18th August 1933, when in Civil Execution No. 402 of 1933 of this Court, on the original side, an application was made for the sale of the properties described in two schedules, on the ground that the first instalment due under the decree had not been paid. We are told that the property in Schedule 1 was in the Insein District and belonged to the C.A.R. Firm, and the other property, in the Hanthawaddy District, belonged to the K.N.C.L.V. Firm. The mode in which execution was asked for was:

(1) By an order for the gale of the properties described in Schedules C and D of the security bond executed by the defendants and filed herein, dated 10th May 1983.

(2) By the transfer of such order for sale to the District Courts of Hanthawaddy and Insein for execution.

3. Objection was taken in this Court, and the following order was passed by the learned Judge on the original side:

4. I accordingly direct that the plaintiff bank may proceed to execution by sale of the property described in Schedule C and D of the security bond; and in order that such order may be carried out, I direct the transfer of the order for sale to the District Courts of Hanthawaddy and Insein for execution.

5. It seems to me that the wording of this order is important. An appeal was lodged against this order by the Chettyar Firms. The sole question raised in appeal was whether the decree in the regular suit required, registration, and the appeal was dismissed. The usual papers were sent to the Hanthawaddy Court for execution, and it is worthy of note that this Court did not merely send a copy of the decree and the usual certificate of non-satisfaction, but it sent a full copy of the order passed on the original side directing that the "order for sale" be transferred to the District Court. It seems clear to me that this was not an ordinary execution, because for one thing the decree, holders were seeking the sale of the property in two districts at the same time, arid in the ordinary way execution cannot be carried on simultaneously indifferent districts. It Will be noted that a transfer of the "order for sale" to the district concerned was what was asked for and that was what was allowed, and that again was what was actually done.

6. On receipt of the papers by the District Court of Hanthawaddy, notice was issued to the K.N.C.L.V. Firm to show cause against execution proceeding. The property in the Hanthawaddy District belonged to the K.N.C.L.V. firm only. As soon as information was received that the appeal against the order directing the order for sale to be transferred had been dismissed, the District Court, having already got all particulars necessary for drafting proclamation of sale, ordered a proclamation of sale to issue. Objection was taken, that there was no attachment and that the other judgment-debtor had not been joined as party. These objections were summarily rejected. It was argued at considerable length before us that attachment was essential before sale. It was pointed out that the Civil Procedure