PURRA PENTAIAH Vs. MADAM PANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of O. XLI, C. P. C., empowers the appellate Court to stay the execution of the decree under appeal, while sub-rule (2) confers a similar power upon the Court which passed the decree, provided an application is made before the expiration of the time allowed for appeal. Sub-rule (3) qualifies the power conferred by sub-rules (1) and (2). It says:

(2.) The question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision petition is, whether the security bond so furnished requires to be registered, or not? There has been a sharp conflict of opinion between the several High Courts in India on this question. So far as the Madras High Court is concerned, it was ruled by a Division Bench, as far back as 1908, that such security bonds are required to be registered, and that decision has held the field till now. Before the learned District Judge, however, it was contended that in view of the reasoning contained in the decisions of the Delhi and Himachal Pradesh High Courts, in label Art press v. I. E. Machinery Co., AIR 1974 Delhi 136 and Union of India v. R. Rajindera Singh, AIR 1975 Him Pra 25 (FB), it must be held that the security bonds furnished under O. XLI, R. 5 C. P. C., do not require to be registered. The learned District Judge, bound as the was by the decision of the Madras High Court, rejected the contention. Hence this revision.

(3.) It was brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the registration of security bonds is causing severe hardship to the parties, besides putting them to substantial expense by way of stamp and registration charges and that, the provisions of the Agricultural Lands and Urban Land Ceiling Acts have further complicated the matter. In this view of the matter, I thought it fit to re-examine the issue to find out whether it was possible to accept the line of reasoning propounded by the Delhi and other High Courts. For that purpose I requested Sri. J. V. Suryanarayana Rao to assist the Court, which he has graciously accepted. He canvassed for confirming the correctness of the reasoning of the Madras High Court.