Skip to content


T.K. Sambanda Chetty Vs. Muthu Chettiar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1942Mad398; (1942)1MLJ335
AppellantT.K. Sambanda Chetty
RespondentMuthu Chettiar
Excerpt:
- - he can make his application at any stage and even though it be not made in good faith, the terms of section 20 leave no discretion to the court to reject it. the best that can be done for the respondent under the circumstances is to direct the district munsif to dispose of the application under section 19, which i understand was made yesterday, as expeditiously as possible......petitioner put in an application under section 20 of madras act iv of 1938, asking the court to stay execution as he was desirous of filing an application under section 19 of the act to scale down the decree. the learned munsif said that the petitioner had ample opportunities in a prior application to make such a request and that he must be considered to have waived his rights. he therefore dismissed the petitioner's application. the act does not however compel a judgment-debtor to make an application at an early stage and so he cannot be deemed to have waived his rights because he did not do so. he can make his application at any stage and even though it be not made in good faith, the terms of section 20 leave no discretion to the court to reject it. the right the petitioner has to.....
Judgment:

Horwill, J.

1. When C.M.P. No. 7194 of 1941 was posted for disposal I found it easier to hear the civil revision petition and dispose of that than to pass suitable orders on the interlocutory applications pending disposal of the civil revision petition at some future date. I have therefore heard arguments in the main application, C.R.P. No. 2685 of 1941.

2. The petitioner put in an application under Section 20 of Madras Act IV of 1938, asking the Court to stay execution as he was desirous of filing an application under Section 19 of the Act to scale down the decree. The learned Munsif said that the petitioner had ample opportunities in a prior application to make such a request and that he must be considered to have waived his rights. He therefore dismissed the petitioner's application. The Act does not however compel a judgment-debtor to make an application at an early stage and so he cannot be deemed to have waived his rights because he did not do so. He can make his application at any stage and even though it be not made in good faith, the terms of Section 20 leave no discretion to the Court to reject it. The right the petitioner has to have the execution stayed pending the filing of an application under Section 19 he possesses at all times and under all circumstances. Section 20 says that

the Court executing the decree shall on application stay the proceedings until the Court which passed the decree has passed orders on an application made or to be made under Section 19.

The only modification of that rule is where the application under Section 19 has been disposed of or where an application under Section 19 is not made within sixty days of the application for stay. In such cases, the Court may proceed with the execution.

3. It has been argued for the respondent that the order might be made conditional; but Section 20 does not permit of a conditional order being made; for if the condition is not fulfilled, Section 20 still makes it peremptory to stay. So the imposing of a condition would be infructuous. The best that can be done for the respondent under the circumstances is to direct the District Munsif to dispose of the application under Section 19, which I understand was made yesterday, as expeditiously as possible.

4. This civil revision petition is therefore allowed with costs. No orders are necessary on C.M.Ps. Nos. 7194 and 7435 of 1941.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //