Unconditional stay of execution of a money decree can be granted if exceptional circumstances justify it, overriding the usual requirement for a deposit or security under the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:

1. Our Order dated 24.09.2025 passed in the instant petition reads thus:

“1. Exemption Application is allowed.

2. Heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Mr. Arvind Nigam, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. We are of the view that there is no good reason for us to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court.

4. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

5. In view of the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, no orders are required to be passed on the application for intervention/impleadment and the same stands disposed of.

6. However, reasons to follow by a separate Order.”

2. This petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi, dated 01.07.2052 in the CM Application No. 26455 of 2025 filed in the RFA(O.S.)(COMM) No. 11 of 2025 by which the application filed by the respondent herein (judgment debtor-original defendant) under Order XLI Rule 5(1) and Rule 5(3) of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908, (for short, “the CPC”) respectively came to be allowed, and thereby the Court stayed the operation of the judgment and money decree dated 25.02.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in the suit instituted by the petitioner herein. In short, the Division Bench of the High Court granted stay of the execution of the money decree suffered by the respondent herein without insisting for the deposit of the decretal amount.

3. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners herein shall be referred to as the original plaintiffs and the respondent herein shall be referred to as the original defendant.

A. FACTUAL MATRIX

4. The plaintiffs along with its subsidiaries and licensees claim to be engaged in the business of manufacturing, distribution and sale of a wide range of products including garments, apparels, footwear for men, women and children, furniture, textiles, watches and other lifestyle/personal care products under the trademark Beverly Hills Polo Club (hereinafter referred to as “BHPC”).

5. The plaintiff No. 1 is an Amsterdam based company and is the proprietor of the BHPC trademark and claims to hold exclusive rights for its use and commercialisation. The BHPC trademark consists of a distinctive look featuring a charging Polo pony with a mounted rider wielding a raised polo stick (mallet) symbolising the sport of Polo.

6. The plaintiff no. 2 is the licensee of the said trademark pursuant to the Master License and Licensing Service Agreement dated 20.05.2008.

7. The plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit