SUBRAMANIAN Vs. VELLAIYA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P. No. 3290 of 1980 is filed by the judgment-debtor against the dismissal of his application R. E. A. No. 376 of 1980 in O. S. No. 45 of 1974 claiming benefits under Act (XIII of 1980) while C.R.P. No. 3291 of 1980 is filed against the dismissal of R.E.A. No. .407 of 1980 in E.P. No. 66 of 1980 in O.S. No. 45 of 1974, filed under section 47, Civil Procedure Code, to dismiss E.P. No. 66 of 1980 as the attachment of electric motor and pump-set is illegal. Since both the revisions arise out of the orders passed in the same execution petition and since the parties are the same, both the revisions are dealt with together. In C.R.P. No. 3291 of 1980, two contentions are raised by Mr. R. S. Venkatachari, learned counsel for the petitioner. The first contention is, that when an execution petition is stayed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Ordinance (I of 1975), attachment cannot be ordered to continue. In effect, his argument is that in view of Ordinance (I of 1975), by which all pending suits and execution proceedings against debtors will have to be stayed, the attachment already effected over the properties of the debtor will have to be raised. Section 4 of Ordinance (I of 1975) runs thus:

(2.) ON a reading of section 4 of Ordinance (I of 1975), it is seen that any suit or a proceeding in execution shall stand stayed until the expiry of a year from the date of the commencement of the Ordinance. Nowhere in the said Ordinance it is stated that the attachments effected prior to the coming into force of the Ordinance shall stand raised. ON the other hand, the proviso to section 4 (1) of Ordinance (I of 1975) states that the Court may pass such orders as it deems necessary for the custody or preservation of the property under attachment. In view of section 4 (1) and the proviso thereunder, it cannot be said that the effect of Ordinance (I of 1975) is to raise the attachment already effected. Hence, this contention of the learned counsel for the revision petition will have to be negatived.

(3.) WHILE considering the above contentions, we will have to bear in mind the provision in Order 21, rule 21, Civil Procedure Code, which enables the Court while dismissing an Execution Petition to order the continuance of the attachment. No doubt, an attachment cannot be continued indefinitely and this Court in several cases had expressed that such indefinite continuance of attachment cannot be made. But, in the present case, the Execution Petition was not closed after the attachment is ordered to continue suo motu by the Court and it is only in pursuance of. Ordinance (I of 1975), the Execution Petition was closed and the attachment was allowed to continue. Even section 4 of Ordinance (I of 1975), which I have extracted above, dealing with stay of proceedings, provides for continuance of the attachment and for safeguarding the attached property. It has to be noted, that Ordinance (I of 1975) had not prescribed any time limit for the continuance of the attachment . The proviso to section 4 merely mentions that the Court may pass such orders as it deems necessary for the custody and preservation of the property under attachment. Further, the moratorium given to the indebted agriculturists under Ordinance (I of 1975) had been extended time and again by subsequent enactments, which prohibited filing of suits and execution petitions in respect of decrees already obtained. In view of the fact that the hands of the Court are tied by a series of enactments, which itself provided for the continuance of the attachment, it cannot be said, in the present case, that the failure on the part of the Court below to mention the period for which the attachment is to continue will make the order invalid. Further, the order directing the attachment to continue has not been questioned and it had become final. In view of the series of special Acts, which provide for stay of further proceedings in execution and continuance of the attachment, the order dated 27th January, 1975, cannot be said to be illegal. Hence, the second contention also will have to be negatived.