AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
It seems to us clear that proceedings under Order 21, Rule 90 of the CPC are proceedings in execution which must necessarily be stayed when
an order u/s 20 of Madras Act IV of 1938 has been passed, until the disposal of a pending application u/s 19. The fact that a sale held before 1st
October, 1937, cannot be set aside under Madras Act IV of 1938 does not justify the Court in going on with proceedings relating to such a sale,
when all execution proceedings have been stayed. In such circumstances the order passed under Order 21, Rule 90 is an illegal order and it must
be set aside. The lower Court will be directed to dispose of the application u/s 19 at once and thereafter to hold a fresh enquiry into the petition
under Order 21, Rule 90. The appellant is entitled to costs in this appeal, payable by the decree-holder.