RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. RAM DEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the time of consideration of submissions advanced in respect of admission of the appeal a short and interesting question arose in respect of interpretation of the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 41 CPC which provides that "where the appeal is against a decree for payment of money, the appellant shall, within such time as the Appellate Court may allow, deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish such security in respect thereof as the Court may think fit."

(2.) Mr. R. K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants canvassed that the various High Courts had occasion to interpret the aforesaid sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 41 along with Rule 5 of Order 41 CPC and it was held that the aforesaid rule is not mandatory in nature.

(3.) The basic ruling in this regard is Union Bank of India v. Jagan Nath Radhey Shyam and Co. AIR 1979 Delhi 36. The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1974, (Bill No. 27 of 1974) as introduced in the Parliament was considered by the Delhi High Court and it was held in paras 18, 19 and 20 thus :