JUDGMENT Edgley, J. - In the suit out of which this appeal arises the Plaintiffs sued for a declaration that a certain sale in execution of a rent decree was void and not binding on them. It appears that the sale in question was held on the 15th of February, 1938, and the Plaintiffs' principal contentions in the suit appear to have been (1) that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to sell the property, having regard to the fact that at the time of the sale an application for the settlement of the Plaintiffs' debts was pending before the Debt Settlement Board and (2) that in any case the matter had been compromised with the Defendant during the course of the execution proceedings and the terms of the compromise had been duly fulfilled. The case for the Defendant was to the effect that the sale which was held on the 15th of February, 1938, was valid as no stay order was issued by the Debt Settlement Board under the provisions of sec. 34 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. He further maintained that, although a compromise had been effected during the course of the execution proceedings on the 20th of August, 1938, the second installment contemplated by that compromise was not paid. The Courts below refused to accept the contentions of the Plaintiffs and dismissed their suit. 2. The main point which has been urged by the learned Advocate for the Appellants is that, in holding the sale on the 15th of February, 1938, the Civil Court acted without jurisdiction. Admittedly, no notice under sec. 34 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act was issued by the Board, but the learned Advocate contends that a mere omission of this nature on the part of the Board cannot have the effect of depriving the parties of their legal rights. To my mind there can be no doubt that secs. 33, 34 and 35 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act must be read together. Sec. 34 makes it compulsory for a Debt Settlement Board to issue a stay order in cases in which an application for the settlement of a debt has been made to it. To my mind there can be no doubt that secs. 33, 34 and 35 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act must be read together. Sec. 34 makes it compulsory for a Debt Settlement Board to issue a stay order in cases in which an application for the settlement of a debt has been made to it. Obviously, without such a notice a Court has no means of knowing whether an application has been made to the Board or not and, in a case in which no such notice has been sent to the Court, it is the duty of such a Court to proceed with the case in the ordinary way. The learned Advocate sought to support his argument in this case by pointing out that the Defendant had actually appeared before the Debt Settlement Board on the 20th of December, 1937, and the sale was not held until the 15th of February, 1938. Even though he may have appeared before the Debt Settlement Board, this fact did not impose any duty on him to inform the Court of the fact that an application had been made to the Board; nor would it have been proper for the Court to take judicial notice of this fact on information received from any person other than an authorised officer of the Board itself. Even if the Defendant allowed the sale to proceed on the 15th of February, 1938, without intervening, he may very well have done so because he had reasonable grounds for supposing that the Petitioner before the Board did not intend to proceed with his application. There is no substance in this contention. 3. As regards the other point urged on behalf of the Appellants the matter is concluded by the findings of fact contained in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court to the effect that the second installment was not paid in accordance with the terms of the compromise dated the 20th of August, 1938. It follows that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is affirmed and this appeal is dismissed with costs. Leave to appeal under cl. 15 of the Letters Patent is refused.