The judgment established the inherent power of the court under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to make orders necessary for the ends of justice, even in the absence of express provisions in the Code.

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.

1. This is an application by the sureties praying that they may be given two months time to pay the amount of the decree, which they are liable to pay as sureties and that execution may be stayed for two months, in order to enable them to pay the amount.

2. The suit was filed under Order 6-A of the Original Side Rules against the defendant and leave to defend was given, on condition that the defendant gave security. The applicants stood as sureties, A decree was ultimately passed and execution is now sought against the sureties.

3. The affidavit of Chandrasekhara Chatty (one of the sureties), filed in support of the application, states that the defendant has been promising to settle the claim with the plaintiff and pay up the decree amount and the sureties therefore did not take any steps to find the money, that ten days before the filing of the present application notice was issued to the sureties to show cause why execution should not be issued against them, that the judgment-debtor is still promising to find the amount due, that the sureties are persons possessing property, but that owing to the suddenness with which the application against them has been made, they are unable to find the money at once.

4. A counter-affidavit has been filed stating that the application is not sustainable in law, that the defendant got several extensions of time that the three months time, which was granted to the defendant at the time of passing the decree, expired on the 12th of January, 1924, that the sureties are aware of the several attempts of the defendant in trying to get time and that as the sureties are men possessing property, there is no reason why they should not pay the amount which they have undertaken to pay.

5. It was not disputed before me at the trial that the sureties are persons, who have got immovable property sufficient to pay the amount of the decree, nor was it disputed that this was the first application taken out against them for execution. The defendant was a dubash in Messrs. Walker and Co., and the sureties state that, as he was promising to pay the decree amount, they did not take steps earlier to raise money and pay off the decree amount. I do not think I can stay execution of the decree altogether for two months, but it seems to me that this is a fit case for staying execution of the decree for one month, in so far as the decree-holder wants to arrest the sureties, in order to enable them to raise money and pay off the decree amount, and for allowing the decree-holder to proceed at once against immovable properties by attachment and sale. This course, while it would not prejudice the decree-holder, would enable the sureties to pay up the decree amount.

6. It often happens that, though men have got property, the conditions in the money market may be such that they could not raise a large sum at once, but have to negotiate for some time to raise money. The sureties are merchants and it seems to me that a warrant for their arrest would ruin their business.

7. In cases of applications for execution, whether against the defendant or the sureties, the primary consideration must be the interest of the decree-holder, and where his interests are likely to be jeopardized by the granting of any application for time, Courts have no option, but to execute the decree. But where without any detriment to the interests of the decree-holder the granting of time to the judgment-debtor or the sureties to pay would not only enable the decree amount to be paid but would prevent serious loss or ruin, I think the Court ought to have power to stay execution against the person, for such time as it thinks reasonable unless there is something in the Code which prohibits such power, A surety may be perfectly solvent and may be able to pay tie amount, if a few days time is given to raise the money ; and he may, if a merchant, be ruined by a sudden issue of process for arrest and I can see no justice in. refusing hi