Leave granted.
The only question which arises for our consideration is as to whether the
High Court was right in directing the appellant to deposit the entire decreetal amount.
Mr. Mariaputham, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
would submit that the High Court committed a serious error in issuing the said
direction as it failed to take into consideration the proviso appended to Sub-rule (3) of
Rule 1 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), as amended by the State of
Maharashtra, which is in the following terms:
“Provided that the Court may dispense with the deposit or
security where it deems fit to do so for sufficient cause.”
It is true that the High Court in its order did not consider this aspect of the
matter, as it was of the opinion that the entire decreetal amount should be deposited
and then and then only the operation of the decree can be stayed.
However, in view of the proviso appended to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order
41 of CPC, it is evident that sufficient cause must exist for issuing such a direction.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
petition and the counter affidavit, we are of the opinion that there does not exist any
cause far less sufficient cause to invoke the proviso.
We, therefore, uphold the order of the High Court. However, the appellant is
given eight weeks' time to deposit the balance amount as it is stated at the Bar that
50% of the principal amount has already been deposited.
The appeal is dismissed with the aforementioned direction.
(S.B. SINHA)