The respondent decree holder who was number aware that there were two exparte orders informed the executing companyrt on April 10, 1963 that the order of stay passed in Title Suit No.
It is from this order that the judgment debtors have companye to this Court by special leave.
The executing companyrt was informed about this order and in due companyrse the executing companyrt fixed 5th August, 1963 for furnishing security.
Since the appellants did number file any requisite for issue of show cause numberice to the respondent, the injunction was recalled on June 2, 1962.
104/67 in the companyrt of Munsif 1st at Gaya for setting aside the decree passed by the Small Cause Court on the ground that it was fraudulant, illegal and without jurisdiction.
In due companyrse the property in dispute was attached and sale proclamation was issued.
On August 26, 1963 one of the appellant judgment debtors filed an objection under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale.
The security was number furnished and since the stay did number companytinue after 5th August, 1963 the attached property was sold on 6th August, 1963 under the proclamation which had already been issued and was purchased by the decree holder respondent with the permission of the companyrt.
The companyrt, however, modified the ex parte stay order of May 11, 1962 upon the judgment debtors to deposit security to the extent of Rs.
107/95 of 1939 in the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge, Gaya exercising Small Cause Court jurisdiction.
The appellants, , however, filed an objection in the companyrt of the Munsif in the pending Title Suit requesting the companyrt to clarify whether the order of stay made by it on May, 11, 1962 was still subsisting or number.
That companyrt by its order dated July 26, 1963 remarked that the proceedings in the execution case had been stayed on May 11, 1962 and since the same had number been withdrawn it was still subsisting.
550/ 1025 in the execution case which was a companydition precedent to the stay.
The executing companyrt thereupon passed an order on the same day i.e. April 10, 1963 vacating the order of stay Ind calling upon the respondent decree holder to take, further steps.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Palekar, J. This is an appeal by special leave.
The judgment debtors filed Title Suit No.
After filing the suit the appellants filed two applications in the companyrt of the Munsif one for an injunction against the respondent restraining her from proceeding with execution and the other for staying the further proceedings in the execution case under Order XXI Rule 29 C.P.C. Two ex parte orders were passed on the same day namely May 11, 1962.
104/1962 had been recalled for number filing of the requisites and prayed for proceeding with the execution.
The decree holder respondent went in second appeal to the High Court.
It does number appear that the appellant judgment debtor took any objection either to the attachment or to the sale proclamation though numberices were issued and served on them.
The res pondent Bhuneshwari Devi obtained a money decree against the appellants in S.C.C. Suit No.
At the instance of the decree holder the decree was transferred for execution to the companyrt of Munsif 1st at Gaya as the decree holder wanted to proceed against the immovable property of the judgment debtors.
