The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mere pendency of an appeal does not operate as a stay of the decree or order, and the power of the appellate Court to impose conditions for granting stay is equitable in nature.

The revision petitioner/petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 05.03.2008 in R.E.A.No. 3 of 2008 in R.E.P 35 of 2005 in L.A.O.P.No. 59 of 2002 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Tirupattur, Vellore District.

2. The trial Court while passing orders in R.E.A 3 of 2008 dated 05.03.2008 has inter-alia observed that "... but it would be seen from the order dated 26.06.2007 made in M.P. 2 of 2007 in A.S 358 of 2007, there was no specific direction with regard to the withdrawal of amount which is directed to be deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer. There was a direction in the order of the Honble High Court order dated 26.06.2007 made in M.P. 2 of 2007 in A.S. 358 of 2007, directing the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the 50% Award amount. Hence this Court cannot pass or go beyond the order of the Honble High Court, dated 26.06.2007 and made in M.P. 2 of 2007 in A.S. 358 of 2007 and ultimately dismissed the application without costs.

3.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner urges before this Court that the order of executing Court in dismissing the application under Rule 165 and 166 of the Civil Rule of the practice is manifestly an erroneous and unjust one contrary to the principles of the Civil Procedure Code and in fact the executing Court should have seen that the revision petitioner has filed the Execution Petition for realizing the Decree amount awarded in L.A.O.P. No. 59 of 2002 and as a matter of fact in the absence of any documentary evidence to establish the respondents case of compliance in regard to the conditional order to deposit of 50% of the amount to be paid within a period of 12 weeks from 26.06.2007. The executing Court should have granted the relief as prayed for by the revision petitioner and in reality the order of stay granted in M.P.No. 2 of 2007 in A.S No.358 of 2007on the file of Honble High Court is not in subsistence and therefore the order passed in R.E.A. No. 3 of 2008 is liable to be set aside and these aspects of the matter have not been appreciated by the executing Court in a proper perspective which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition in furtherance of substantial cause of justice.

4.It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner is entitled to seek the relief of compensation even during the pendency of appeal and as such the reasoning assigned by the Executing Court in dismissing the R.E.A.No. 3 of 2008 is against the decision of this Court reported in S.Elango-v- Special Tahsildar, Adi DravidarWelfare Department, Camp atTiruppattur, Vellore District (2002(2) CTC 406). In support of the said contention he relies on the decision above said decision whereby and whereunder it is observed as follows:-

"it is thus obvious that mere pendency of an appeal does not operate as stay of the decree or order. Therefore, the trial Court should not have rejected the application merely on the ground of pendency of the appeal. The matter is therefore required to be re-determined by the Sub Court. It is however made clear that in case a stay order is passed by the Appellate Authority, obviously the Sub Court has to follow such order etc.

5. However the contention of the respondent is that the respondent has complied with the order of this Court passed in M.P.No. 2 of 2007 in A.S.No. 358 of 2007 dated 26.06.2007 by means of depositing a sum of Rs.6,29,393/-in 21.01.2008 before the trial court after deducting the income-tax amount and therefore this Court has not passed any orders entitling the revision petitioner to receive the said amount and in view of the fact that A.S. No. 358 of 2007 is pending before this Court as against the award passed in L.A.O.P.No. 59 of 2002 dated 20.2.2004 on the file of trial Court, the Land Acquisition Original Petition cannot be ordered by the trial Cou