1. The appellant on 13th January 1941 obtained an assignment of a decree in O.S. NO. 383 of 1935 for Rs. 885 passed against respondent 1. Respondent 1 in 1937 had obtained a decree in O.S. No. 491 of 1935 for a sum of Rupees 833 against the appellant. That decree was under attachment at the instance of a creditor of the appellant. On 20th January 1941 the appellant filed three execution applications. The first was the main execution petition No. 63 of 1941 in which he sought to execute the decree in O.S. No. 383 of 1935 as assignee. In E.A. No. 102 of 1941 the appellant applied to record part satisfaction of the decree in O.S. No. 383 by the adjustment of the decree in O.S. No. 491. In E.A. No. 100 of 1941 the appellant applied to the Court for entry of full satisfaction of the decree O.S. No. 491 against himself by reason of the adjustment. While those three matters were pending the respondent on 16th April 1941 filed an application for stay of the decree in O.S. No. 383 against himself, claiming to be an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of Sections 19 and 20 of Madras Act 4 of 1938. A stay was granted and he followed up that application by a substantive application under Section 19 of the Act, I.A. No. 555 of 1942, dated 9th April 1942. As a result of these proceedings under Sections 19 and 20 of Act 4 of 1938 the Courts below have rejected the appellant's applications to adjust the two decrees and execute only the balance of the greater decree. It seems to me that that decision is obviously correct. If the adjustment and the recording of satisfaction had been carried out before the respondent claimed the benefits of Act 4 of 1938 and obtained a stay of proceedings in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 383, the position might have been different; but when once the proceedings in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 383 had been stayed it is not, in my opinion, possible to adjust the two decrees or to permit execution for the balance of the decree in O.S. No. 383. Until the disposal of the petition under Section 19 all proceedings in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 383 must cease. I am unable to accept the contention of the appellant that the adjustment contemplated in Order 21, Rule 18, Civil P.C., comes into being automatically the moment there are two applications for execution of cross-decrees between the same parties. In my opinion, the satisfaction of the smaller decree and the part satisfaction of the larger decree are the result of an act of the Court making orders in the two execution applications and until those orders have been passed the two decrees do not become adjusted one against the other. When therefore a stay application intervenes, it is not within the competence of the executing Court to proceed with what is essentially a process of execution, ignoring the stay. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs (one set). Leave to appeal is refused.