JUDGMENT
Dawson Miller, C.J.
1. This is an application asking for a stay of execution on behalf of the appellant in an appeal brought under Section 215 (3) and Section 224 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. The appeal is from a decision of the Deputy Collector, acting with the powers of a Deputy Commissioner, the amount in dispute being over Rs. 5,000, and objection is taken that this Court has no jurisdiction under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to exercise its powers of stay. Now, it must be conceded that the Civil Procedure Code does not apply to cases except cases tried by the Civil Courts save in so far as there is a express provision in the Civil Procedure Code itself, and the question which we have to determine is whether, under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act provides that the provisions of Section 561 of the Code Civil Procedure (now Order XLI, Rule 22) which applies to cross objections shall, so far as applicable, apply to all appeals under this Act from decisions of the Deputy Commissioner and Sections 215 to 229 deal with appeals in suits under the Act itself. Section 224 provides that certain appeals shall lie from the Deputy Commissioner or the Deputy Collector Civil Procedure Code are applied to the trial of cases under that Act, and the Local Government has power to make followed. That appears from Section 264, which proves that the Local Government may make rules to carry out the objects of this Act, and, in particular and without prejudice to the generality of Sub-section (1), the Local Government may make rules in a great number of cases amongst others to prescribe the procedure to be followed and the information to be given by any party or applicant in any proceeding under this Act and Section 265 provides, in Sub-section (1), that the Local Government may, with the previous sanction of the Government of India, rules for regulating the procedure of the Deputy Commissioner in matters under this Act for which a procedure is not provided hereby; and may, by any such rule, direct that any provisions of “ha Code of Civil Procedure shall apply with or without modification to all or any classes of cases before the Deputy Commissioner, and Sub-section (3) which is import-ant provides that, until rules are made under Sub-section (1), which I have just referred to, and subject to those rules when made and to the other provisions of the Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to certain matters which are described under headings (a) to (k) shall, so far as may be, and, in so far as they are not inconsistent with this Act, apply to all suits, appeals and proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner under this Act and to all appeals from decisions passed in such suits or proceedings Now, the Local Government, in fact, has made no provision for making rules for regulating the procedure and, therefore, under Sub-section (3) of Section 265 the only rules which apply are those mentioned in that sub-section and those rules which are enumerated, as I said, under the headings (a) to (k) do not include the powers of the Court to stay proceedings. Therefore, it appears to me that as the Civil Procedure Code does not in itself apply to oases of this sort, and as the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act which alone gives a right of appeal to the High Court although it prescribes the procedure to be followed, does not incorporate in that procedure the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, that the right of the High Court to stay proceedings in oases of this nature cannot be exercised under the Civil Procedure Code The matter, however, is not of very great importance in this case, because it seems to me quite clear that the Court has inherent jurisdiction as a Court of Appeal where an appeal lies to the High Court, to stay proceedings in the lower Court as ancillary to its powers as the Appellate authority to reverse an order of the inferior Court. That doctrine was laid down in Panchanan Singha Roy v. Dwarka Nath Boy 3 C.L.J. 29 and again in Balkishen Sahu v. Khugnu 31 C. 722 : 8 C.W. 572 At the same time, I think that this right of staying execution in oases under appeal should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where it is manifest that justice demands such an exercise. We are prepared, therefore, to hear the applicant in this case and to consider whether there is any real ground upon which he is justified in asking us for a stay of execution.
Coutts, J.
2. I agree.