ROOP LAL Vs. PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's revision filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking modification of the inter-locutory order dated 22.9.12004 passed by the learned District Judge, Kapurthala. The learned District Judge while entertaining the first appeal of the defendant-petitioner has passed an interim order of stay by imposing numerous conditions.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondents have filed a suit against the defendant-petitioner, who has been working as Inspector Grade-I for recovery of Rs. 3,50,893.75 paise, for various reasons mentioned in the judgment, the suit has been decreed along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and future interest from the date of filing of the suit till final realisation. The plaintiff Corporation has also been held entitled to realise future interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 1,17,984.96 paise. The defendant-appellant has challenged the decree in appeal. Along with the appeal, the defendant-petitioner filed an application under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC for stay of the money decree dated 19.4.2004. The learned District Judge, Kapurthala, stayed the operation of the judgment and decree dated 19.4.2004 subject to the condition of deposit of whole decretal amount with interest till the date of the order. The deposit was required to be made within a period of one month from 22.9.2004, i.e., the date of the order. The amount so deposited with the Court was not to be disbursed to the plaintiff-respondents till the final decision of the appeal. The concluding part of the order of the learned District Judge, reads as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been serving in the plaintiff-respondent Department and he is to retire after 4-5 years. According to the learned counsel, once the appeal is admitted for consideration by the First Appellate Court then the operation of the judgment and decree under appeal should ordinarily be stayed. The learned counsel has also submitted that there is no bar on the power of the First Appellate Court to order stay of execution of the judgment and decree including the money decree. For the aforesaid proposition, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Rajwant Singh v. Major Sukhdev Singh, 1976 P.L.J. 616 and argued that Order 41 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. does not make any distinction between the money decree and other decree which may warrant refusal of staying the execution of a money decree.