D. THYAGARAJA IYER Vs. THE ABISHEGA KATTALAI OF TIRUVARUR DEVASTHANAM REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI M.A. PANDIAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this civil revision petition is the defendant in S.S. No. 4.5 of 1946 on the file of the Court of the Sub -Collector, Nepapatam, which is a suit filed under Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act (Act I of 1908). It is admitted that the plaint asks for a sale of the holding of the ryot for recovery of the arrears of rent claimed. Learned counsel are not agreed as to whether the suit was filed shortly before or shortly after the 4th October, 1946, on which date Madras Act XVII of 1946 came into operation. But the exact date of the suit is immaterial and it is admitted that it was instituted early in October, 1946. Shortly after filing his written statement the petitioner applied for stay of the suit under the said Act and the Deputy Collector by his order, dated 2nd November, 1946, accordingly stayed it till 15th April, 1047. It would appear that alorg with this suit several other suits were also stayed under similar orders. Against the orders passed in four of such suits civil revision petitions were filed in the High Court on behalf of the present respondent which is Sri Thyagarajaswami Devasthanam, the plaintiff in the entire batch of suits. While dismissing those civil revision petitions at the stage of admission Horwill, J., made the following order:

(2.) MR . Desikan argued that the Deputy Collector should not have cancelled his previous order after having directed that the suit should not be taken up for trial before 15th April, 1947. But I do not see why the Deputy Collector should not advance the trial of the suit when it is pointed out to him that an order of stay which he had previously made was passed for a period longer than what is warranted under the provisions of the Act. An order of stay is not an adjudication on the rights of the parties and it is quite within the competence of the Court to advance the trial of a suit notwithstanding the order of stay previously made, or if it is so inclined, to continue the order of stay for a longer time.

(3.) IT is contended by Mr. Arunachalam, for the respondent that Sub -section (3) would apply to the present suit. That sub -section is in the following terms: