D. K. SETH, RAJENDRA NATH SINHA

( 1 ) THE prayer for stay of operation of the judgment and decree appealed against made by Mr. Sadhan roychowdhury in this application for stay was opposed by Mr. Suchit Kumar Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. According to him, the Court cannot grant any stay unless the condition contained in sub-rule (3) clause (c) of Rule 5 of order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)is complied with. He contended that sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of the Order 41, CPC makes it mandatory for the appellant to secure or deposit the money while preferring an appeal against a money decree. He relies on a decision in Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla v. Sushila Devi, AIR 1986 him Pra 78. According to him, Order 27, rule 8a, CPC refers to Rules 5 and 6 of Order 41, CPC but omits to mention or refer to order 41, Rule 1 (3) CPC. Therefore, Order 41, Rule 1 (3), CPC is not subject to Order 27, Rule 8a, CPC even if the appellant is government, as in the present case. He had also relied on the decision in Jaisingh v. Jagat Ram, AIR 1953 Nagpur 176. According to him, mere allegation of hardship or irreparable loss will not justify grant of in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document