Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sau. Aloka Jaigopal Biswas, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the learned District Judge dated 26th July 2018 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 51/2018. The District Judge had granted stay of execution of a money decree of about Rs.96 lakhs passed in favour of the petitioner against respondent No.1, subject to the condition that the judgment debtor (respondent No.1) deposit Rs.5 lakhs within four weeks. The petitioner contended that this condition was too lenient and contrary to settled law, which requires that stay of a money decree should generally be granted only upon deposit of the entire decretal amount or at least a substantial part thereof. The petitioner also argued that the District Judge failed to consider directing the judgment debtor to furnish a bank guarantee for a substantial sum. The respondent No.1 submitted that there was a compromise restricting the claim to about Rs.10 lakhs, but the court did not rely on this as it was not part of the impugned order. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the condition of deposit of Rs.5 lakhs, and directed the judgment debtor to deposit Rs.30 lakhs or furnish a bank guarantee of the same amount within four weeks, failing which the stay would stand vacated. The court also directed the District Judge to decide the appeal expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Stay of Execution of Money Decree - Conditions for Stay - Order 41 Rule 1 and Rule 5 CPC - The court considered the propriety of conditions imposed by the District Judge for staying execution of a money decree. The petitioner argued that the condition to deposit only Rs.5 lakhs against a decree of Rs.96 lakhs was too lenient and contrary to settled law that stay should generally be granted only upon deposit of the entire or substantial decretal amount. The court held that the District Judge's order was not sustainable and directed the judgment debtor to deposit Rs.30 lakhs or furnish a bank guarantee of the same amount within four weeks, failing which the stay would stand vacated. (Paras 03-06) B) Civil Procedure - Compromise - Restriction of Claim - The respondent contended that there was a compromise wherein the petitioner agreed to restrict her claim to about Rs.10 lakhs. However, the court did not rely on this submission as it was not reflected in the impugned order and the matter was at the stage of stay conditions. (Para 04)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Judge erred in imposing lenient conditions (deposit of Rs.5 lakhs) for staying execution of a money decree of about Rs.96 lakhs, and whether the judgment debtor should be directed to deposit the entire decretal amount or furnish a bank guarantee.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the condition of deposit of Rs.5 lakhs imposed by the District Judge, and directed the judgment debtor to deposit Rs.30 lakhs or furnish a bank guarantee of the same amount within four weeks, failing which the stay granted by the District Judge would stand vacated. The District Judge was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously.
Law Points
- Stay of execution of money decree
- Conditions for stay
- Deposit of decretal amount
- Bank guarantee
- Order 41 Rule 1 CPC
- Order 41 Rule 5 CPC
