(1.) Shri J. B. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri S. L. Aaiwasi, learned counsel for the respondent. On 22-3-2012 the matter came up for consideration and orders on I. A. No. 4622/2011 filed by the appellant to stay the execution of the decree. An objection was raised by the other side that the appeal itself was incompetent and not maintainable because of non-compliance of Order XLI, Rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Code (wrongly typed as Order XLIII, Rule 1(3) in the order dated 22-3-2012). On the said date, case was adjourned to examine the legal position in view of the objection raised by counsel for the respondent.
(2.) Appellant has suffered a money decree. He filed an application under Order XLIV to prosecute the appeal against said decree as an indigent person. That application was registered as M.C.C. No. 390/2010. After hearing the other side, that M.C.C. was allowed and permission was granted to appellant to prosecute this appeal as an indigent person. That is how this appeal has been registered as F. A. No. 132/2011.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent making reference to the provisions contained in Order XLI, Rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Code submitted that it is mandatory for appellant to deposit the amount disputed in appeal or furnish security in respect thereof and if it is not done, appeal itself is incompetent.