Skip to content


Vahidunnissa Saheb Vs. Mohammad Mahaboob Ali and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subjectcivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1944Mad225
AppellantVahidunnissa Saheb
RespondentMohammad Mahaboob Ali and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....board was dissolved. although the application under section 4 had not then been disposed of, the learned district munsif held that there was no application pending before a legally constituted board and therefore section 25 of the act ceased to operate. he accordingly refused to allow stay of execution.2. when once an application has been made under section i of the act, all execution proceedings are automatically stayed under section 25, which enacts that execution or other proceedings shall not be proceeded with until the board has dismissed the application. therefore the only way in which the ban under section 25 on execution can be lifted is by the dismissal of the application under section i. it is obvious that the dissolution of the board cannot operate as a dismissal of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Byers, J.

1. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that after the presentation of an application under S. i, Madras Debt Conciliation Act, the board was dissolved. Although the application under Section 4 had not then been disposed of, the learned District Munsif held that there was no application pending before a legally constituted board and therefore Section 25 of the Act ceased to operate. He accordingly refused to allow stay of execution.

2. When once an application has been made under Section i of the Act, all execution proceedings are automatically stayed under Section 25, which enacts that execution or other proceedings shall not be proceeded with until the board has dismissed the application. Therefore the only way in which the ban under Section 25 on execution can be lifted is by the dismissal of the application under Section i. It is obvious that the dissolution of the board cannot operate as a dismissal of the .application in the absence of any statutory provision to 'that effect. Section 3 (5) of the Act provides for the establishment of another board and this has, in fact, been done. The petitioner's learned advocate has exhibited a copy of G.O. No. 3116 (Development Department) dated 25th January 1943, re-constituting this and numerous other boards under Section 5. It may be that in the interval between the dissolution of the board and the constitution of a fresh board there is an interregnum during which pending applications under Section 4 are held up, but in view of the clear wording of Section 25 there is no room for the contention that the petition must be deemed to have been disposed of with the dissolution of the board. It is not until the pending application has been dismissed that execution can be allowed to proceed and the learned District Munsif had no jurisdiction to refuse to allow stay. In the result this petition is allowed, the order of the learned District Munsif is set aside and stay of execution is ordered to continue, subject to any orders which may, in the meanwhile, have been passed by the newly constituted board. The petitioner will have his costs.


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