(1.) IN this case a stay order was granted by this Court on 23-9-1977 which wag further modified by this Court on 14-12-1977. According to the modified order the appellant was permitted to furnish two securities; one for Rs. 45,000/- and another of Rs. 30,000 and it was directed that the appellant shall furnish securities on or before 23-12-1977. It appears that the securities were filed by the appellant; one was furnished earlier which was verified and accepted and on 23-12-1977 the learned trial Court i. e. the 6th Additional District Judge passed an order that the security bond of Rs. 30,000/- which was filed on that date should be registered. It also passed an order that the earlier security bond which was accepted on 16-12-1977 should also be registered, and the Court will consider these security bonds after they have been registered.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that these security bonds having been furnished in pursuance of Order 41 Rule 5 of C. P. C. in view of the decisions of this Court reported in Dadoo Balaji Korku v. Kanhaiyalal dhannaram (AIR 1947 Nag 26) and Hajijiwakhan v. Gulabchand, (AIR 1961 madh Pra 2) registration is not necessary as it is a step in the judicial proceedings and the bond becomes operative only when it is accepted by the court. Whereas learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that as the bonds create a charge on immoveable property for more than Rs. 100/-it requires registration under the Transfer of Property Act as well as under the registration Act and therefore, a bond is not a proper bond so long as it is not registered and the, Court below was right in observing that the bond can only be accepted if it is registered. He placed reliance on the decisions reported in kasemali v. Ajoyendu Paul (AIR 1956 Cal 375), Bishnath Sahu v. Prayag Din (AIR 1958 All 820), R. M. Palat v. P. A. Nedungadi (AIR 1958 Ker 377), (FB)and Chiranjilal Agarwala v. Chittaranjan Mukherjee, (AIR 1960 Pat 305 ).
(3.) ORDER 41 Rule 5 of the Civil P. C. provides :--