Shri Roshan Lal Gupta and others vs The Punjab and Sind Bank Ltd. and others

R.N. Mittal, J.—Mr. R.S. Mongia, learned counsel for the applicants has given an undertaking that the applicants shall deposit Rs. 40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the decretal amount within a period of two years from 1st April, 1978 in 8 quarterly equal instalments, the first instalment of Rs. 5000/- with interest on the decretal amount up to 1st April, 1978, on or before 1st April, 1978, the second instalment of Rs. 5000/- with interest from 1st April, 1978 to 30th June, 1978 on the balance decretal amount on or before 1st July, 1978, the third instalment of Rs. 5000/- with interest up to 1st October, 1978, the balance decretal amount on or before 1st October, 1978 and so on.

Mr. H.L. Sarin accepts the aforesaid undertaking of the leaned counsel for the applicants but submits that in terms of Order 41, Rule 5(3)(c) the applicants may further be directed to furnish security for due performance of the decree that may ultimately be binding upon them to the satisfaction of the executing Court. Rule 5(3)(c) provides that no order for stay of execution shall be made unless the Court is satisfied that security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of decree as may ultimately be binding upon him. From the perusal of the rule it is clear, that no stay can be granted unless the applicant gives security for due performance. Consequently I direct the applicants to furnish security regarding due performance of the decree which may ultimately be binding upon them within a period of two months. The stay order is granted subject to the above conditions. In case the applicants fail either to deposit any of instalment or furnish the security as directed above, the stay order shall stand vacated. If the amount is deposited the same be paid to respondent No. 1.