DARA TRIPURA SUNDARALINGAM Vs. VINJAMURI VENKATARAMANAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner brought an application before the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam, purporting to/be under Section 25 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, asking for a stay of the execution of a money decree pending proceedings before the Debt Conciliation Board under Section 4 of the Act. When the application was filed, a copy of the petition was filed before the Debt Conciliation Board. A counter was filed making the usual allegations of frivolity and so on against the petitioner; and the Court passed an order staying the disposal of the execution application on condition of the petitioner's paying up the costs of the suit or of depositing them into Court on or before a certain date. The petitioner contends that this condition imposed by the order of the Subordinate Judge was ultra vires.

(2.) Under Section 25 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, the Court is bound to stop all proceedings in connection with the debt which is being considered by the Debt Conciliation Board. The wording of the section is most peremptory: When an application has been made to a Board under Section 4, any suit or other proceeding...in respect of any debt for the settlement of which application has been made shall not be proceeded with until the Court has dismissed the application.

(3.) So that the Court, upon its attention being drawn to the fact that proceedings are pending before the Debt Conciliation Board, is bound to stay whatever proceedings are before it in connection with that debt. It does not matter whether or no the Court is of opinion that the proceedings before the Debt Conciliation Board are frivolous or intended to delay justice; and no petition for stay is necessary. It is not necessary even to call upon the other side for a counter. The Court may require the petitioner to produce proof that he has filed the petition before the Debt Conciliation Board and that it has not been dismissed; and if the petitioner can satisfy him on those points, the Court has no discretion but to stay.