MURARI MOHAN BANDURY Vs. KRISHNAPADA BANDURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule was issued on the basis of statements made by the petitioner which are now found to be untrue. It was represented to us at the time when the Rule was issued that some property of the judgment-debtor had, in fact, been attached in execution of a decree for costs passed by the Court below and that on an application for stay made by the judgment debtor the Court below granted only a limited stay after accepting security from him. It now appears that the judgment-debtor's property has not been attached. In these circumstances, we discharge the rule, but at the same time we must draw the attention of the Court below to the provisions of Order 41, Rule 6(2), Civil P.C. That Court |under that sub-rule has full powers to stay a sale on taking security from the judgment-debtor. It need not, and ought not to, grant a limited stay order and ask the judgment-debtor to obtain a further order of stay from this Court. The procedure, which has been adopted by the Court below leads to multiplication of proceedings and this for the reason of the Court below not having exercised the power which it has under the law. If any occasion arises for the exercise of the power conferred on that Court by law, that Court has to exercise it. With these observations we discharge the Rule.