BABU LAL Vs. SANT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) AN important question of law, which arises for consideration in the present case, is as to whether an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, `c. P. C. ') on behalf of the respondent/decree-holder is maintainable for directing the appellants to make the payment of mesne profit/compensation as per prevalent market rate of monthly rent of the rented shop during the pendency of the second appeal for hearing?

(3.) SO far as power to the appellate court under Order 41 Rule 5 of the C. P. C. , while passing the order of stay under Order 41 Rule 5 of the C. P. C. , is concerned, it is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Limited vs. Federal Motors (P) Limited (2005) 1 SCC 705, and Anderson Wright & Company vs. Amar Nath Roy, 2005 DNJ (SC) 562, that the appellate court has jurisdiction to put the applicant under Order 41 Rule 5 of the C. P. C. , on such reasonable terms as would, in its opinion, reasonably compensate the decree-holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of the decree by grant of stay order, while passing the stay order in his favour, in the event of the appeal being dismissed.