RAJARAM KONTU Vs. RISHABHA KUMAR S/O. MOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are concerned here with two applications made by the judgment-debtor (appellant) in the first Court, (1) for setting aside an auction-sale under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., and (2) for instalments under Section 11, C.P. Money-lenders Act.

(2.) THE facts are as follows. The decree-holder (respondent) obtained a final decree for sale on 16-8-1938 for Rs. 15,880-10-0. The sale was held on 16-1-1940 and realised Rs. 12,500-0-0, It was confirmed on 16-2-1942. On 14-12-1939, that is to say, after the final decree and before the sale, the judgment-debtor applied to the Debt Relief Court and on 15-1-1940, the Debt Relief Court issued a notice under Section 6(8), Debt Relief Act for stay. This notice was not received by the civil Court before the sale was held. The exact date on which it reached the civil Court is not clear from the record. The earliest endorsement by the civil Court on the notice is dated 25-1-1940. But whatever the exact date is it is evident that it was not received by the civil Court on or before 16-1-1940, the date on which the sale was held. The question then arises what was the effect of that notice on the sale. The earned Counsel for the judgment-debtor (appellant) contends that it has the effect of nullifying the sale, and he relies on Krishna Dewaji v. MIthmal Lakhmichand and Zibal Iswara v. Muka .

(3.) SECTION 6(3), Debt Relief Act, which is the one which concerns us here, is in these terms: When an application made under Sub-section (1) is admitted, and when notice of such admission is given io the Courts concerned, proceedings; if any, against the debtor...pending before a civil Court...shall be stayed.