Mukerji, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is against an order of the Civil Judge of Saharanpur made in respect of certain objections which purported to have been filed under Section 47 Code of Civil Procedure in Execution Case No. 41 of 1952.
(2.) MUKHIA Shyam Lal had obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 24,979 -120 against the objector Madan Lal from the court of the Civil Judge of Mathura in suit No. 29 of 1950. The decretal amount was to be realised by the sale of mortgaged property which had been specified in the decree. The properties which were the subject of the mortgage decree were partly zamindari properties and partly house properties. The decree was put into execution at Saharanpur after the decree had been transferred for execution from Mathura to Saharanpur. The objector Madan Lal challenged the executability of the decree on two grounds. The first was, that the decree holder could only execute his decree after he had proceeded against the compensation bonds which had been obtained in respect of zamindari property and secondly that the decree was to remain stayed in pursuance of the rules framed by the State Government under the UP ZA and LR Act. The rule on which reliance appears to have been placed was Rule 4(2)(vii) which says this: Rule 4. Stay of certain suits and proceedings (1) ___________ (2) All proceedings (except in so far as they relate to the realisation, otherwise than by ejectment of the judgment debtor, of cost or compensation awarded in any suit or proceedings upon any decree or order, unless it is a decree or order which became final before the date of vesting, but is not a decree which may be executed by ejectment of the judgment debtor passed in any such suit or proceedings previous to the date of vesting shall be stayed. (i) ______________ (ii) ______________ (iii) ______________ (iv)_______________ (v) ______________ (vi) ______________ (vii) all cases of execution of decrees relating to debts which are wholly or partially charged upon or decreed against an estate or any part thereof.
(3.) THE court below repelled the first contention of the objector, namely that the decree could only be proceeded with against compensation bonds for a partial execution. But in regard to the second contention, the court below took the view that execution had to be stayed in view of the provisions of the rule quoted above. The question which we have to determine in this appeal a question which was not clearly put forward in the court below, was whether the stay could continue to block the way of the decree holder in obtaining satisfaction of his decree -such satisfaction as the law permits him -after intervention of the circumstances which we shall presently state.;