The discretion to stay the execution of a money decree must be exercised judiciously, and an exceptional case must be made out for such stay.

S.B. Shukre, J.

Reply filed by the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 is taken on record.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

3. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the material facts which ought to have been discussed and adjudicated upon by the learned District Judge have not been discussed and adjudicated on by him. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned District Judge, while imposing conditions for staying a money decree, could not have imposed very lenient conditions. He submits that it is well settled law that generally, the stay to the money decree should not be granted and if at all it is to be granted, it must be upon the condition of depositing of the entire amount of the decree under challenge or at least a substantial part of it. But, he submits, here the learned District Judge has done the reverse. He submits that instead of directing the judgment debtor/appellant to deposit the substantial part of the money decree, which was of about Rs. 96.00 lakhs, the learned District Judge has directed her to deposit a paltry sum of Rs. 5.00 lakhs, which is nothing but a travesty of justice. He submits that the learned District Judge did not even consider directing the judgment debtor to furnish a bank guarantee in lieu of solvent security for Rs. 30.00 lakhs, a substantial sum of money.

4. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that there was compromise between the parties in which it was agreed by the petitioner that she would be restricting her claim as against respondent No.1 to about Rs. 10.00 lakhs and odd amount. He also submits that the trial Court has power to grant stay to the execution of money decree by directing the deposit of the amount disputed or permitting such security, as it thinks fit. He relies upon the case of Sihor Nagar Palika Bureau vs. Bhabhlubhai Virabhai & Co., (2005) 4 SCC 1.

5. I have gone through the impugned order and I find that it does not give any adequate reason for taking such a lenient view in the matter. After all, what is under challenge is a money decree and the settled law is that money decree should not be ordinarily stayed unless some exceptional reasons are given. Even in the case of Sihor Nagar Palika Bureau (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for respondent No.1, this principle of law has been stated in clear terms, when it is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 5 thus :

"5.............. Ordinarily, execution of a money decree 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 exercised in appropriate cases."

6. In the case of Malwa Strips Private Limited vs. Jyoti Limited, (2009) 2 SCC 426, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that even though there is a discretion for staying the execution of the decree, by imposing suitable conditions, the discretion must be exercised judiciously. Speaking on the discretion of the Appellate Court to impose conditions, the Hon'ble Apex Court said that the provision may not be mandatory, but the purpose for which the provision has been inserted must be taken into consideration and an exceptional case has to be made out for stay of execution of a money decree. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the question of causing of undue hardship to the respondent must be appropriately answered by the Court granting stay. The relevant observations, as they appear in paragraph 14, of the judgment are reproduced thus :

"14. 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 ha