Judgment :- 1. The judgment-debtor in a decree for redemption of a kanam passed by the Munsiff filed an appeal against it before the District Judge and obtained on 24.9.1951 an order staying delivery till 30.10.1951. Before that date, the decree-holder had entered appearance and appointed an advocate to appear for him. On 30.10.1951 the appellant made a fresh application for a further stay which was moved before the court after notice to the advocate of the respondent and the court passed an order staying delivery still further till 30.11.1951. The order for delivery was executed and delivery was actually effected on 31.10.1951. The judgment debtor moved the Munsiff for re-delivery but the Munsiff thought that the execution having been stayed by the appellate court, it was not competent for him to proceed with the application. The party therefore approached the District Judge with an application praying for a re-delivery. It is the order passed by the learned judge upon this application that is the subject-matter of this revision. 2. The learned judge enters into a detailed discussion of the law as to whether under 0. 41, R. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an order of stay passed by the appellate court operates from its date or only from the date of its communication to the court below. This is a point on which there is sharp conflict of opinion among the High Courts in India. After referring to the conflict and after taking the view followed by the Patna and Lahore High Courts in preference to the view taken by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court reported in ILR Madras 151 (which is the view of the Allahabad and Travancore High Courts) the learned judge came to the conclusion that the Munsiff acted without jurisdiction in having delivered the property after the order of stay of delivery had been passed by the District Court, though that order was not communicated to the Munsiff. The learned judge proceeds to direct the party to file a fresh application before the Munsiff for redelivery, and the Munsiff was directed to grant redelivery. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the view of the law taken by the lower court is erroneous and that the view taken by the Madras, Allahabad and Travancore High Courts, should have been followed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the view of the law taken by the lower court is erroneous and that the view taken by the Madras, Allahabad and Travancore High Courts, should have been followed. It is contended that in any event the learned judge should not have directed the Munsiff to pass an order for re-delivery, but should have left it to its discretion to decide the case afresh according to law in his own way. 4. As already stated the decree holder, through his advocate, was aware of the order passed by the appellate court on 30.10.1951 staying delivery till 30.11.1951. The knowledge of the advocate must be taken to be the knowledge of the party for purposes of this kind and so taken, though the party may not be, in fact, aware of the order, yet he will be taken to be aware of it for purposes at any rate of directing a redelivery of the property whose delivery has taken place contrary to the order passed by the appellate court which was in force at the time. Want of actual knowledge may be a ground for not fastening any penalty or criminal liability upon a party but for the purpose of directing redelivery of the properties whose delivery had been stayed by a competent appellate court, knowledge of counsel has to be taken to be knowledge of the party. The cases that were referred to before me upon the question as to whether an order of stay passed by an appellate court operates automatically from its date or only from the date when that order is communicated to the lower court do not seem to have considered the question as to what will be the effect of the knowledge of the order of stay passed by the appellate court to the party obtaining delivery. That question however came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court which held that it is irregular that a party with knowledge of the stay passed by the appellate court should take delivery of the properties contrary to the tenor of that order and that a party who so obtains delivery ought not to be allowed to retain possession so taken (See 1951 KLT 90 =1951 DLR Travancore Cochin 242). With respect I follow that decision and hold that the petitioner-decree-holder who has taken delivery of the properties on 31.10.1951 is bound to redeliver the properties to the judgment debtor. In this view it is unnecessary to consider the conflict of views that prevails in the Courts in India as to the time of the operation of an order of stay passed by the appellate court, whether it is from the date of the order or from the time the stay order is communicated to the court below. 5. The complaint that the learned judge has curtailed the discretion of the Munsiff in the matter of disposal of the petition for redelivery is without foundation. The learned judge thought it was his duty to lay down the law for the benefit of the Munsiff and the Munsiff is bound to follow the law as laid down by the District Judge in the absence of any authority of the Supreme Court or the High Court to which he is subordinate. The learned judge has only stated that the Munsiff will dispose of the matter in the light of the observations made by him as regards the law. It cannot be said that the learned judge was in error in having so said. 6. The order passed by the court below is therefore right and the petition for its revision should be dismissed with costs. 7. Communicate to the Munsiff forthwith.