MOVIE ENTERPRISES AND Vs. M SPERIASAMY MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of some importance was raised by the respondents about the scope of Order 41, Rule 5, Civil P. C. in the matter of some decrees relating to payment of money pending disposal of the appeal.

(2.) An order 'ex parte' granting interim stay on terms of furnishing adequate security etc., was passed in favour of the appellants. The trial Court reported that the appellants have furnished satisfactory security for the due fulfilment of the ultimate decree that may be passed in the appeal. The respondents after notice contended that they were not afforded sufficient opportunity in the trial Court to demonstrate the nature and adequacy of the security furnished. The applications were, therefore, at the request of the respondents, referred back to the trial Court for a fresh finding about the nature of the security and the solvency of the sureties after allowing full opportunity to the parties. A further report has since been received stating that the security accepted earlier is satisfactory and sufficient.

(3.) When the proceedings were brought up for final orders, the respondents raised a further objection that the appellants are not entitled to the relief as they have failed to make out a 'prima facie' case to obtain stay of the decree under appeal. Their objections are twofold : It is first contended that the decree under appeal is for payment of money and that no stay could be granted unless the decree amount is lodged into Court in view of the decision of this Court in '9 Mys LJ 484', in which Doraswamy Iyer, C. J. has observed thus :