Court must be satisfied with conditions mentioned in proviso to Section 51 are fulfilled at time when it is called upon to make subsequent order.

A.P. Shah, C.J.

Admit. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. By consent, the appeals are taken up for hearing.

2. These appeals are directed against a common order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing Application Nos.2284, 2285, 2286 and 2287 of 2006 in Execution Petitions Nos.193 and 194 of 2006. The facts giving rise to these appeals may be briefly stated as follows:

The appellants are the judgment debtors/original defendant Nos.2 and 3. The respondent/decree holder filed a suit in C.S.No.704 of 1998 and a decree was passed by this Court on 30.01.1999 in terms of a Memorandum of Compromise signed by all the parties. Under the compromise, defendant Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 were to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.95,37, 103/-with further interest @ 33% per annum at monthly rests from the date of compromise i.e., 04.01.1999 till the date of payment. Further, the defendants were permitted to pay the amounts decreed along with interest @33% at monthly rests in 78 weekly installments commencing from 08.01.1999 and ending 30.06.2000 and if there being any delay in payment of the installments, it shall carry interest @ 36% per annum at monthly rests from the due date till the date of payment of the installments. Further if the defendants fail to pay any three consecutive installments on the due dates, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to execute the decree for the entire amount and that would become payable irrespective of the period fixed for the payment of the decree amount. As default was committed, the decree holder filed Execution Petitions Nos.193 and 194 of 2000 against the respective appellants. An order of arrest was passed by the Master on 011. 2001 against both the appellants. According to the appellants it came to their knowledge only on 26.06.2006, as during the interregnum period, the appellants were discussing with the decree holder to arrive at a settlement, that too, without even knowing that the order of arrest was already passed on 011. 2001. Immediately, they filed applications to recall the order of arrest, but the Master passed a conditional order to keep the warrant of arrest pending by directing the judgment debtors i.e., appellants to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on or before 15.07.2006. Aggrieved by the order of the Master dated 03.07.2006, Application Nos.2284 and 2286 of 2006 were filed by the respective appellants and Application Nos.2285 and 2287 of 2006 were filed for stay of the execution proceedings pending disposal of the applications. Learned single Judge, by the impugned order dated 09.06.2007, dismissed all the applications. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, these two separate appeals are filed by the appellants.

.3. Mr. B.T. Seshadri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-decree holder raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeals. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the appeals are not maintainable, in view of the clear bar created by the amended provisions of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure. He submitted that Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent or in any instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an order or decree is heard and decided by a single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such single Judge. According to the him, the appellants filed appeals under Order XIV Rule 12 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules (hereinafter referred to as O.S.Rules) which were numbered as applications as per practice, and against the order passed by the learned single Judge in the said appeals, no further appeal would lie in view of the express bar contained in Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. On the other hand, Mr. R. Yashodvardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitte