Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Jai Mata Engineering Limited and another, were defendants in Commercial Civil Suit No. 7 of 2023 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 05.03.2024, directing recovery of Rs.39,34,194.82 with interest. The defendants filed Commercial Appeal No. 6 of 2025 under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and also filed an application (Exh. 5) under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking stay of execution of the decree. The Commercial Appellate Division, by order dated 23.12.2025, allowed the stay application but directed the defendants to deposit the entire decreetal amount along with interest within two weeks. Aggrieved by this condition, the defendants filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on 12.02.2026, arguing that the condition to deposit the entire amount was onerous and that the appellate court had no jurisdiction to impose such a condition. The High Court heard the petitioners' counsel and perused the record. The court observed that the appellate court had exercised its discretion under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC, which permits imposing conditions for grant of stay. The court noted that the condition to deposit the decreetal amount was not arbitrary or perverse, and the appellate court had not committed any jurisdictional error. The High Court held that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and does not allow it to interfere with a discretionary order unless it is shown to be without jurisdiction or patently illegal. Since the petitioners failed to demonstrate any such error, the petition was dismissed. The court also noted that the petitioners had the remedy of challenging the condition before the appellate court itself if they found it onerous, but they chose to file a petition under Article 227. The judgment was delivered on 06.03.2026 by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Stay of Execution - Order XLI Rule 5 CPC - Conditional Stay - The appellate court granted stay of execution of an ex-parte decree subject to deposit of the entire decreetal amount within two weeks. The High Court held that such a condition is within the discretionary power of the appellate court and does not amount to a jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227. The petition was dismissed as the condition was not found to be onerous or arbitrary. (Paras 1-5) B) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of Interference - The High Court reiterated that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or patent illegality and does not extend to reappreciating evidence or interfering with discretionary orders unless they are perverse or without jurisdiction. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the condition imposed by the Commercial Appellate Division to deposit the entire decreetal amount for grant of stay of execution is onerous and warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the condition imposed by the Commercial Appellate Division was within its discretionary power under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC and did not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Law Points
- Order XLI Rule 5 CPC
- Section 13 Commercial Courts Act 2015
- Article 227 Constitution of India
- Conditional stay
- Deposit of decreetal amount
- Discretionary power of appellate court
- Interference under Article 227
