The discretionary power of the Appellate Court in granting stay orders and the equitable nature of jurisdiction in exercising judicial discretion.

1. The Petitioners/Appellants/Defendants have filed this miscellaneous petition praying for issuance of an order by this Court to stay the operation of the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.178 of 2004 dated 30.04.2008 passed by the Learned II Additional District Judge, Salem (Fast Track Court-II) and proceedings pursuant thereto pending disposal of the Appeal.

2. The trial Court in O.S.No.178 of 2004 (O.S.No.698 of 2003 on the file of the Learned Sub Judge, Salem) on 30.04.2008 has passed a Judgment directing the Petitioners/Appellants/ Defendants to pay the suit claim of Rs.5,43,600/- and for the principal sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to pay an interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till date of payment and also granted three months time to the Petitioners/Appellants/ Defendants to make the payment viz., the Decree amount.

3. Feeling aggrieved as against the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court viz., the Learned II Additional District Judge, Salem (Fast Track Court-II) in O.S.No.178 of 2004 dated 30.04.2008, the Petitioners/Appellants/Defendants have projected the present Appeal A.S.No.144 of 2009 before this Court.

4. This Court in M.P.No.1 of 2009 in A.S.No.144 of 2009 filed on behalf of the Petitioners/Appellants/Defendants praying for the relief of stay of operation of the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court viz., the Learned II Additional District Judge, Salem (Fast Track Court-II) dated 30.04.2008 has interalia observed and passed the following order:

"... Therefore, I see a prima facie case to grant an order of interim stay but with the condition. Accordingly, the interim stay is granted on condition that the petitioners to deposit 25% of the suit claim of Rs.5,43,600/-within a period of four weeks from today to the credit of the suit before the Lower Court. In default to deposit the said amount, the interim stay granted will stand automatically vacated without further reference to this Court.

Notice to the Respondent returnable by four weeks. Post the case after the service of notice."

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants/ Defendants urges before this Court that the Respondent/Plaintiff in the Plaint has suppressed the Lawyers reply notice dated 17.03.2003 (issued on behalf of the Petitioners/Appellants/ Defendants) and the trial Court has not taken into account of the plea of the Petitioners/Appellants/Defendants that the entire amount has been paid by the Petitioners/Appellants/Defendants and in any event the Petitioners/Appellants/Defendants have preferred the present Appeal before this Court and the same is pending.

6. Also, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/ Appellants/ Defendants contends that this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2009 in A.S.No.144 of 2009 on 23.01.2009 has directed the Petitioners/ Appellants/Defendants to deposit 25% of the suit claim of Rs.5,43,600/-within a period of four weeks to the credit of the suit before the trial Court and since the amount of Rs.1,35,900/- being 25% of the suit claim of Rs.5,43,600/- has since been complied by the Petitioners/ Appellants/ Defendants then they are entitled to get the interim stay order granted by this Court subject to the condition as an absolute one.

7. That apart, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants/Defendants that the Respondent/ Plaintiff has filed a reply statement under Order 8 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code before the trial Court and the exercise of discretion by the trial Court in allowing the Respondent/Plaintiff to project the reply statement is not valid in law and in this regard the Petitioners/ Appellants/ Defendants have raised a ground in the memorandum of Appeal as a second ground and strictly speaking the Respondent/ Plaintiff should have filed an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code.

8. The core contention put forward on the side of the Petitioners/Appellants/Defendants is that there is no provision in Civil Procedur