Judgement ORDER :- This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is taken out for the purpose of staying the sale of the properties belonging to the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act for the purpose of collecting the income-tax due by the petitioner, and, to quash the proceedings of the District Collector, Coimbatore, in regard thereto. 2. This petitioner filed an application in this court under S. 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, against the decision of the Income-tax Tribunal which upheld the assessment. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no order for stay could be obtained in that proceeding and that therefore the petitioner had no adequate alternative remedy. In support of that contention he relies on the decision of the Andhra High Court in Narayana Rao v. Commr. of Income-tax, Hyderabad, 1956-29 ITR 222 : (AIR 1957 Andh Pra 672). The Bench in that case held that in a proper case the High Court has power under Sec. 151, C.P.C. and, under Art. 227 of the Constitution to issue an order for stay of collection of income-tax arrears. The Bench further held that S. 66(7) of the Indian Income-tax Act did not limit the scope of such powers. On the facts of that case they declined to grant a stay because the only reason put forward was the inability of the petitioner to pay the tax. During the course of that judgment the Bench relied upon a passage from the judgment of Rajamannar, C.J. in Pattisam. In re, ILR (1954) Mad 592 : ( AIR 1954 Mad 573 ). The learned Chief Justice there held that Art. 226 of the Constitution could not be invoked for the sole purpose of obtaining an interlocutory order. As authority for this position the learned Judge relied upon the Supreme Court decision in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, 1952 SCR 28 : ( AIR 1952 SC 12 ). 3. What the petitioner seeks to obtain in this proceeding is only an interlocutory order to stay the sale of his properties for realisation of tax. Apart from the fact that this remedy could be obtained in the proceeding now pending before the Income-tax Bench of this court, the remedy that is sought by this proceeding is really an interlocutory one. The petition is therefore dismissed. Petition dismissed.