Holding

A stay of execution of a money decree may be granted only on showing sufficient cause and after compliance with the deposit/security requirement; the High Court’s stay was unjustified and is set aside.

Summary

M/s Malwa Strips Pvt Ltd filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC against M/s Jyoti Ltd for a sum of money. The trial court granted conditional leave to defend, requiring the respondent to deposit an admitted amount, which the respondent failed to do, leading to a decree in favour of the appellant. The respondent appealed and sought a stay of the decree; the High Court stayed execution of the money decree. The Supreme Court held that a stay of execution of a money decree is discretionary and must be granted only on showing sufficient cause, and that non‑deposit under Order XLI Rule 1(3) is a condition precedent for such a stay. It found the High Court had erred in staying the decree without adequate justification and directed the respondent to deposit Rs 35 lakhs and furnish security for the balance, otherwise the decree would be executable. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the stay.

Issues considered

Whether a stay of execution of a money decree can be granted when the appellant has not deposited the disputed amount or furnished security under Order XLI Rule 1(3) of the CPC.
Whether the High Court exercised its discretion properly in staying the decree.
Whether the suit under Order XXXVII CPC is maintainable.
Whether non‑compliance with the condition precedent under Order XLI Rule 5(5) bars the grant of a stay.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order XLI Rule 1(3), s. Order XLI Rule 5(1), s. Order XLI Rule 5(5)
Companies Act, 1956

Subjects

money decreestay of executionCPC Order XLIconditional leave to defendsummary suitdiscretiondeposit requirementcivil procedure

Judgment

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1297

MIS. MALWA STRIPS PVT. LTD. A
v.
M/S. JYOTI LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 7410-7411 of 2008)

DECEMBER 18, 2008
8.
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ~ 0. XL/ r. 1(3), 5(1) and
(3) - Appeal against money decree - Stay of execution of
decree pending appeal, even though judgment debtor not c
depositing decretal amount - Held: Not justified - While
granting stay of execution of decree, sufficient cause must be
shown - High Court did not arrive at the conclusion that it
would cause undue hardship tQ judgment debtor if ordinary
rule to direct payment ofdecretal amount or part of it and/or D
directly through judgment debtor to secure the payment is
granted - Hence, judgment debtor directed to deposit the
sum and furnish security therefor.
Appellant filed a summary suit under order 37 CPC
against the respondent claiming certain sum.
Respondent filed application for leave to defend the suit. E
Application was allowed subject to the deposit of the
admitted amount within the specified period. Respondent
did not deposit the amount and the trial court decreed the
suit in favour of appellant. Respondent filed appeal. He
also filed application for stay of the decree passed by trial F
court. High Court stayed the operation and execution of
the decree in its entirety. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The decree passed by the trial judge is a
money decree. A conditional leave to defend was granted. G
The said condition has not been fulfilled. Thus, leave to
defend would be d~emed to have been refused. [Para 3]
1.2. In the instant case, High Court failed to notice the
1297. H
1298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XLI CPC. The
appellate court has the discretion to direct deposit of
such amount, as it may think fit, although the decreetal
amount has not been deposited in its entirety by the
judgment debtor at the time of filing of the appeal. But
8 while granting stay of the execution of the decree, it must
take into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case before it. It is not to act arbitrarily either way. If a
stay is granted, sufficient cause .must be shown, which
means that the materials on record were required to be
perused and reasons are to be assigned. Such reasons
C should be cogent and adequate. [Para 11] [1304-D-E]
1.3. High Court failed to notice that suit was one
under Order XXXVll of the Code. Whether it was ...
maintainable or not may fall for consideration in the
appeal. Even assuming -that the same was not
D maintainable, the question which should have been
posed by the High Court was as to whether sufficient
cause had been made out to reverse the decree passed
in favour of the appellant. Even a decree could have
been passed having regard to the defence raised by the
E respondent under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code, therefore,
there is no justification at all as to why an order of stay
of the nature was passed by the High Court. Even if sub-
rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XLI CPC is not mandatory, the
purpose for which such a provision has been inserted
F should be taken into consideration. An exceptional case
has to be made out for stay of execution of a money
decree. The High Court has not said that any exceptional J Jo .
case has been made out. It did not arrive at the conclusion
that it would cause undue hardship to the respondent if
G the ordinary rule to direct payment of the decreetal
amount or a part of it and/or directly through the
judgment debtor to secure the payment of the decreetal
amount is granted. A strong case should be made out for
passing an order of stay of execution of the decree in its \"'
entirety. [Para 12] [1305-A-C]
H
MIS. MALWA STRIPS PVT. LTD. v. MIS. JYOTI LTD. 1299

1.4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of A
the instant case, the respondent is directed to deposit a
sum of Rs.35 lakhs within the period. Respondent shall
furnish adequate security for the rest of the decreetal
amount within the said period. In the event the
respondent fails to comply with the order, the decree shall B
be exec,utable at once. [Para 13] [1305-C-E]

...
,, ...
Rajasthan State Electricity Board and Anr. vs. Ram Deo
and ors. AIR 1999 Rajasthan 264; Kayamuddin Shamsuddin
Khan vs. State Bank of India 1998 (8) SCC 676; Sihor Nagar
Palika Bureau vs. Bhabhlubhai Virabhai and Co. 2005 (4)
SCC 1 ; B.P. Agarwal and Anr. vs. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd.
c
and ors. 2008 (3) sec 397, referred to.
Case Law Reference:
AIR 1999 Rajasthan 264 Referred to. Para 9
1998 (8) sec 676 Referred to. Para 10 D
2005 (4) sec 1 Referred to. Para 11
2008 (3) sec 397 Referred to. Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7410-7411 of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 27.3.2008 and E
12.5.2008 of the High Court of M.P. Bench at Indore in I.A. No.
1624 of 2008 in Civil First Appeal No. 152 of 2008 and I.A.
No. 4211 of 2008 respectively.
Shiv Sagar Tiwari for the Appellant.
F
... Kamini Jaiswal for the Respondent.
' ). ~ The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant is a company incorporated and registered
under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, "the said Act"). It is G
engaged in manufacturing of copper strips and copper foils etc.
It has its r~tered office at 17-20, Industrial Area No.2, AB
,
., Road, De as, Madhya Pradesh. Respondent is also a
company registered and incorporated under the said Act. It has
its registered office at Nanubhai Amin Marg, Industrial Area, H
1300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A Vadodara. Respondent used to .place orders for supply of
copper rods strips and foils from time to time with the appellant.
Allegedly, the payments used to be made towards the said
supply from time to time. Appellant, .inter alia, on tre premise
that a sum of Rs. 49,03,908."29 was owed to 1t by the
8 respondent filed a Summary Suit under Order XXXVll of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code'l An
application for leave to defend the· suit was fil~d by the ·
respondent. Appellant contended that as the respondent raised
a defence only as regards the rate of interest arid not the
principal amount, its application should be dismissed. By an
C order dated 23.08.2007, the application for leave to defend the
suit was allowed, subject to the condition that the respondent
shall make payment of undisputed and admitted amount of
Rs.22,64,789.52. Such deposit was to be made by 22.9.2007. ·
Respondent obtained extension of time to deposit the amount.
D However, ·as the said amount was notdeposited; the trial court
passed a judgment .on or about 14.112007 decreeing the suit
in favour of the appellant. Respondent preferred an appeal
thereagainst. An application for stay of the said judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court was also filed. By reason of
E the impugned judgment, the High Court stayed the operation
and execution of the decree in its entirety. While doing so, the
High Court opined:
'We are conscious of the fact that usually money decrees
are not stayed in appeal. At the same time, it is not a
F universal principle of law that the stay can never be granted
in cases relating to money decree. The Court has
discretion to grant a stay keeping in view all facts and
. '

circumstances of the case, including the manner in which
the trial of the suit was conducted and the impugned
decree was passed.
G
· We are prima facie of the view that a case for stay
of execution of the decree is made out by the appellant
on the facts on record. We do not, however, wish .to
express any opinion •on the merits and demerits of the
case atthis
I ,
stage, which, in our opinion, will be gone into
H
M/S. MALWASTRIPS PVT. LTD. v. M/S. JYOTI LTD. 1301
[S.B. SINHA, ~.]
at the time of hearing of the appeal. For the purpose of A
, grant of stay, we are of the view that a ground for stay, as
contemplated under 0.41 R.5 CPC is made out. We are,
therefore, inclined to stay execution of the decree pending
appeal."
Appellant is, thus, before us. B

....
_
3. Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant would submit that the High Court
committed a serious error of law in passing the impugned
judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the
defendant - respondent had raised no substantive and bona c
fide defence and that in view of the matter it was not a case
where the execution of the decree should have been stayed.
4. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would urge that
compound interest was not payable and in any event a suit D
under Order XXXVll of the Code being not maintainable, the
.....
_
manner in which the judgment and decree passed by the
learned trial judge being wholly unsustainable, the High Court
could not be said to have committed any error of law in passing
the impugned judgment.
E
5. The decree passed by the learned trial judge is a money
decree. A conditional leave to defend was granted. The said
condition has not been fulfilled. Leave to defend, therefore,
would be deemed to have been refused. Correctness of the
said order had not been questioned.
"' F
..... ~ The Parliament, by reason of Section 87 of Act 104 of 1976
inserted sub-rule (3) in Rule 1 of Order XLI of the Code, which
is to be in the following effect:
"(3) Where the appeal is against a decree for payment of
money, the appellant shall, within such time as the G
Appellate Court may allow, deposit, the amount disputed
in the appeal or furnish such security in respect thereof as
i the Court may think fit.''
6. Ar. explanation was also added to sub-rule (1) of Rule
5 of Order XLI. In terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Order XLI, H
1302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A an appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings. It is for
the Appellate Court who may, for sufficient cause, order stay
of execution of such decree. The explanation appended to the '
said sub-rule reads as under:
"Explanation:- An order by the Appellate Court for the stay
B of execution of the decree shall be effective from the date
of the communication of such order to the Court of first
instance, but an affidavit sworn by the appellant, based on
his personal knpwledge, stating that an order for the stay
....
~ .
of execution of the decree has been made by the ••
Appellate Court shall, pending the receipt from the
c Appellate Court of the order for the stay of execution or
any order to the contrary, be acted upon by the Court of
first instance."
7. In terms of sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 of Order XU, the court
D shall not make an order staying the execution of the decree
notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-rules,
where the appellant fails to make the deposit or furnish the
security specified in sub-rule (3) of rule 1.
a, We will proceed on the assumption that although the
word 'shall' has been used in Order XU Rule 1 (3) of the Code,
E
the same is not mandatory in character, and, thus, may be read
as directory.
9. In Rajasthan State Electricity Board and Anr. vs. Ram
Deo & ors. [AIR 1999 Rajasthan 264], after noticing some of
the aforementioned decisions as also the legislative history of
F '<::
the said provision, a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan
! .A
High Court held as under:
"19. After close scrutiny of the aforesaid observations, I am
of the opinion that in view of the provisions of Sub-Rule
(5) of Rule 5 of Order 41 CPC it cannot be held that
G
appeal against the ' decree for payment of money is not
maintainable, if filed without making compliance of the
provisions contained in Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 41 'Ir_
CPC and it is the duty of the Registry to see that on
application under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC seeking stay of
H money decree the appellant has to incorporate a note in
MIS. MALWA STRIPS PVT. LTD. v. MIS. JYOTI LTD. 1303
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

regard to his readiness and willingness to comply with the A
directions under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 41 CPC.
~ If the appeal is preferred against the decree for payment
of money without any stay application under Order 41 Rule
5 CPC then in that event, it is the duty of the appellant to
incorporate a note in the memo of appeal in respect of his
B
readiness and willingness to comply with the directions
issued by the Court under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule I of Order
41 CPC."
/
r
~ 10. We may, however, notice that although the provisions
of sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XU have been held not to be
mandatory, this Court in Kayamuddin Shamsuddin Khan vs.
c
State Bank of India [(1998) 8 SCC 676] opined that non-
compliance of a direction to deposit the decreetal amount or
part of it or furnish security therefor would result in the dismissal
of the stay application but not the entire appeal, stating:
D
"8. This would mean that non-compliance with the direction
given regarding deposit under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of
~
Order XU would result in the Court refusing to stay the
execution of the decree. In other words, the application for
stay of the execution of the decree could be dismissed for
such non-compliance but the Court could not give a E
~
direction for the dismissal of the appeal itself for such non-
compliance."
11. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Sihor
Nagar Palika Bureau vs. Bhabh/ubhai Virabhai & Co. [(2005)
-, \ 4 sec 1), wherein it was held: F

-~ "6. Order XU Rule 1(3) of the CPC provides that in an
appeal against a decree for payment of amount the
appellant shall, within the time permitted by the Appellate
Court, deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish
such security in respect thereof as the Court may think fit. G
Under Order XU Rule 5(5) a deposit or security, as
abovesaid, is a condition precedent for an order by the
Appellate Court staying the execution of the decree. A
bare reading of the two provisions referred to hereinabove,
shows a discretion having been conferred on the Appellate H
1304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
I
r

A Court to direct either deposit,of the amount disputed in the
appeal or to permit such security in respect thereof being
furnished as the Appellate Court may think fit. Needless '\
to say that the discretion is to be exercised judicially and
not arbitrarily depending on the facts and circumstances
of a given case. Ordinarily, execution of a money decree
B
is not stayed inasmuch as satisfaction of money decree
does not amount to irreparable injury and in the event of
the appeal being allowed, the remedy of restitution is

'
always available to the successful party. Still the power is ' ~

there: of course, a discretionary power and is meant to be
c exercised in appropriate cases."
To the same effect is the decision of this Court in B.P.
Agarwal & anr. vs. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. & ors. [(2008) 3
sec 3971
The High Court in this case failed to notice the provisions
D
of sub,.rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XLI.
The appellate court, indisputably, has the discretion to
direct deposit of such amount, as it may think fit, although the ~

decreetal amount has not been deposited in its entirety by the
judgment debtor at the time of filing of the appeal. But while
E
granting stay of the execution of the decree, it must take into ,_
I
consideration the facts and circumstances of the case before
it. It is not to act arbitrarily either way. if a stay is granted,
sufficient cause must be shown, which means that the materials
on record were required to be perused and reasons are to be
F assigned. Such reasons should be cogent and adequate.
The High Court, with respect, failed to notice that suit was ~~
one under Order XXXVll of the Code. Whether it was
maintainable or not may fall for consideration in the appeal.
Even assuming that the same was not maintainable, the
G question which should have been posed by the High Court was
as to whether sufficient cause had been made out to reverse
the decree passed in favour of the appellant. Even a decree '
~
could have been passed having regard to the defence raised
by the respondent under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code. We,
H therefore, see no justification at all as to why an order of stay
M/S. MALWA STRIPS PVT. LTD. v. MIS. JYOTI LTD. 1305
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

of the nature was passed by the High Court. A
12. Even if the said provision is not mandatory, the purpose
/
for which such a provision has been inserted should be taken
into consideration. An exceptional case has to be made out for
. stay of execution of a money decree. The Parliamentary intent
should have been given effect to. The High Court has not said B
that any exceptional case has been made out. It did not arrive
at the conclusion that it would cause undue hardship to the
respondent if the ordinary rule to direct payment of the decreetal
/
~ amount or a part of it and/or directly through the judgment debtor
to secure the payment of the decreetal amount is granted. A c
strong case should be made out for passing an order of stay
of execution of the decree in its entirety.
13. We, therefore, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of this case direct the respondent to deposit a
sum of Rs.35 lakhs within a period of four weeks from date.
D
Respondent shall furnish adequate security for the rest of the
decreetal amount within the same period. Appellant shall be
......, entitled to withdraw a ·sum of Rs.30 lakhs out of the said
deposited amount without furnishing any security and the rest
.amount on furnishing security. In the event the respondent fails
to comply with the order, the decree shall be executable at E
once.
14. The appeals are allowed with the aforementioned
directions. No costs.
N.J. Appeals allowed.

ll )