Gurnam Singh, J. - (1.) THIS , appeal is directed against the judgment the learned Single Judge, dated, 14 -7 -1953.
(2.) RAM 'Partap Plaintiff -Appellant institute Ease it against Hardas Singh for realisation of Rs. 20613/ - a charge on immovable property situate in The suit was decreed by the District Judge, Patiala on 19th Magh 2006/23 -1 -1950. The decree was given in the following terms: The judgment -debtor shall deposit the decretal amount by 20th May 1950, failing which the decree -holder shall have a right to realise the entire amount through the sale of the mortgaged property. The judgment -debtor failed to deposit the decretal amount by due date. The decree -holder, therefore, took out execution on 10 -6 -1950, praying for realisation of the amount by sale of the mortgaged property. The judgment -debtor claiming himself to be a displaced person presented an application for' stay of the execution proceeding under Section 6, Displaced Persons (Legal Proceedings) Act, 1949. As the Act was not in force in this State the application was dismissed. After the Act came into force, the judgment -debtor presented a similar application. The executing Court after finding that the application was by a displaced person rejected the tame on the ground that a mortgage decree or a decree for sale of the mortgaged property could not? be regarded as a decree for payment of money. The execution proceedings were still pending and the house was being sold when the Act was repealed and substituted by the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, LXX of 1951. This Act came into force in the Slate of Delhi on 10 -12 -1951 and in this State on 20 -12 -1951. The judgment -debtor submitted an application for ad judgment of his debt under Section 5 of the Act to the Tribunal at Delhi. In this application he prayed for stay of the execution proceedings. His prayer was; turned down Joy the Tribunal and he was directed to approach the executing Court. Consequently he sub -Red an application in the Court of the District Judge, Patiala, praying that the proceedings, is required by Section 15 of the Act, be stayed and the cord be transferred to the Tribunal at Delhi. The learned District Judge dismissed his application the ground that a charge incurred on the security of property situate in India was not immune from attachment and say in execution proceedings. Being dissatisfied with the findings of the District Judge, the judgment -debtor appealed to the High Court. My learned brother Chopra J. accepted the appeal and stayed the proceedings, vide his order dated 14 -7 -1953. He directed the executing Court to act as provided by Section 15, Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Judge.
(3.) IT may be mentioned here that during the pendency of the proceedings out of which the present appeal has arisen another identical application under Section 5 of the Act, was made by the judgment -debtor before the Tribunal at Patiala, While arguing the appeal before the learned Single Judge the parties agreed that this application be taken into consideration in order to avoid further litigation and delay in the decision of the case. The findings of my learned brother are: (1) that the Respondent judgment -debtor is a displaced person; and that the pecuniary liability incurred by him on the security of immovable property situate in India was a 'debt' for the purposes of the Act. After arriving at these findings my learned brother" directed the executing" Court to act in accordance with the provisions of Section 15, Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act.;