SELVALAMMAL Vs. SUMATHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree-holder in O. S. No.1355 of 1971 on the file of the District Munsif, Kallakurichi, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent herein is the judgment-debtor. The judgment debtor filed an application I. A. No. 2263 of 1979 under S. 19 of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists' Relief Act 4 of 1938, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The preliminary objection taken by the decree holder before the court below to this application by the judgment-debtor was that the judgment-debtor earlier filed a similar application under dismissed on 7-8-1978 and hence, the present application is not maintainable. This objection has been overruled by the court below by the order, subject matter of revision and the court below has directed enquiry into the merits of the application.

(2.) Mr. T. V. Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the decree-holder, submits that the earlier application under S. 19 of the Act was, in fact, preceded by an application under S. 20 for stay and the substantive application under S. 19 was dismissed as "not pressed at present" on 7-8-1978, and this would amount to 'rejection' of the application under S. 19 and hence, as per the later part of the proviso to S. 20 the decree as it stands shall be executed notwithstanding anything contained in the Act to the contrary. In support of his submission, learned counsel relies on the judgment of Rajamannar C. J. in Narayanan V. Rathinasami As against this line of argument put forth by the learned counsel for the decree-holder, Mr. N. vanchinathan, learned counsel for the judgment-debtor, would submit that on the facts and in the context of the case it would be a misnomer to rely on the later part of the proviso to S. 20 and since the earlier application under S. 19 was dismissed as 'not pressed at present' there was no rejection of the application under S. 19 on merits and hence, there is no bar law for prosecuting a fresh application under S. 19.

(3.) On an appraisal of the language of the concerned provisions, I am inclined to sustain the order of the court below. S. 20 reads as follows: