appellants
.....
CORAM: A.M. DHAVALE, J.
DATED : 22nd October, 2018.
ORAL ORDER :
1. Issue notice before admission to the respondent
returnable on 3rd December ... Rupees One Lakh) in the first appellate Court as
security under Order XLI Rule 5(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Code.
( A.M. DHAVALE
order staying the execution of the decree.]"
6.........."
A bare reading of sub rule (5) of Rule 5 of Order XLI makes ... furnishes security as specified in sub-rule
(3) of Rule 1 of Order XLI. The language used in Rule (8-A) of Order XXVII
taking this
court to the language employed in sub rule 5 of Order 41 CPC . He also
placed reliance ... thereof as the Court may think fit. Under Order XLI
Rule 5(5) a deposit or security, as abovesaid, is a condition
precedent
security in respect of the awarded amounts. The applicability of the provisions of sub-rule (5) of
Rule 1 of Order XLI to the present ... award the applicability of the provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule 1 of
Order XLI arose for the first time before the appellate Court
comply with the provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 of Order XLI of the Code for
obtaining stay of operation of the money ... Court to follow the provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 of Order XLI of the Code to
grant stay of operation
1604 of 2018)
under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil
Procedure has been preferred by the appellant seeking ... rule (5) of Rule 5 of Order XLI of the C.P.C ., which
is quoted hereunder:
"(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in
the foregoing
Trupti 15-sa-916-15.doc
furnishing the security as per Order XLI Rule 5 Sub Rule (3) of
the Code of Civil Procedure
said property. As such,
the entire premise of the impugned order was erroneous, according
to the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the opposite party candidly submits ... held, inter alia, on a
consideration of Order XLI Rules 1(3) and 5(5) of the Code of Civil
Procedure , that the discretion
impugned order that the
appellate court adopted an erroneous legal view in
2
holding that the provisions of Order XLI Rule 5 ... case. However, ultimately the appellate court, by the
impugned order, granted security of Rs.50,000/- to
"compensate lost occasioned by delay in execution
stay without
imposing any occupation charges.
It is seen from the impugned order that the executing court
considered the materials on record and arrived ... faulted for having granted stay of
execution.
However, Order XLI, Rule 5(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure ,
the principles of which also apply
