JANGIR SINGH GANDA SINGH Vs. NIHAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition for revision is directed against the order of this Sub-Judge 1st class Sunam Dated 22nd August, 1964, where by the Sub-Judge refused the prayer of the judgment-debtor under O. 41 R. 6 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The prayer was that the sale be stayed on such terms as giving of security of otherwise as the Court may think it until appeal is disposed of.

(2.) A decree for money was passed against the petitioners. Against that decree and unless there are very exception al reasons stay of money decree is not ordered. He further points out that Shrimati Nihal Kaur decree-holder is the widow and the other decree-holders are the sons of the decease Sahni Singh and they have no source of livelihood so that the ad interim stay order of this Court is operating the appellants could say in reply is that if the land of the judgment-debtors it is incumbent on them to satisfy it subject of source to the decision in the appeal. Mr. Agnihotri prays that in case deposit is made the decree-holders should not be allowed to withdraw the amount unless they furnish security for restitution to the satisfaction of the executing Court and with notice to the judgment-debtor appellants. I order accordingly. It the deposit of the decretal amount is not made within a mount the decree-holders will be entitled to take out execution. no order as to costs. " in pursuance of this order the judgment-debtors could not deposit the decretal amount with the result that the execution was taken out in the executing Court. During the course of the execution the executing Court passed an order for sale of the property. After this order the judgment-debtors made an application under O. 41 R 6 (3 ). That application has been disposed of the learned Sub-Judge by his order which is the subject-matter of this revision petition. The relevant part of this order reads thus:-

(3.) NO order for stay of execution shall be made under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) unless the Court making it is satisfied:- (a) that substantial loss may result to the party applying for stay of execution unless the order is made; (b) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (c) that security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him.