The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party seeking a stay of execution under Order 21, Rule 29, CPC must establish sufficient reasons and a prima facie case for granting the stay.

( 1 ) THE ambit of. Order 21, Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the question to be determined in this Writ Petition. For proper appreciation, Order 21, Rule 29 is quoted herein below :-"29. Stay of execution pending suit between decree-holder and judgment-debtor.-Where a suit is pending in any Court against the holder of a decree of such Court or of a decree which is being executed by such Court, on the part of the person against whom the decree was passed, the Court may, on such terms as to security or otherwise, as it thinks fit, stay execution of the decree until the pending suit has been decided : provided that if the decree is one for payment of money, the Court shall, if it grants stay without requiring security, record its reasons for so doing. "a reading of the above provision would show that discretion has been given to the executing Court to grant stay of execution if a suit is pending between the decree-holder and judgment-debtor in the same Court. The question is, what are the circumstances under which the executing Court has to exercise the discretion to grant stay. Though no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to under what circumstances stay under order 21, Rule 29, CPC should be granted or refused, Courts are required to adopt a rigorous test and appreciate the facts and circumstances of each case before doing so.

( 2 ) THE fundamental consideration is that when a decree has been passed by a Court in favour of a party he should not be, unless there is extraordinary circumstances, deprived of enjoying the fruits of the decree except for good reasons. It is well settled that a decree remains in force until it is set aside and it should not be lightly dealt with on the basis of surmises and conjectures that in the suit filed subsequently the same may be set aside. A person should not be deprived of the fruits of the decree merely because of suits of frivolous character are instituted. The decree must be allowed to be executed and stay should not be granted as a matter of course. Even if stay is granted, it must be on suitable terms, so that the earlier decree is not stiffered. This view gets fortified by a decision of this Court in the case of Judhistir jena v. Surendra Mohanty, reported in AIR 1969 Orissa 233.

( 3 ) THE Patna High Court in the case of subash Kumar v. Sheo Balak, AIR 1976 patna 307, held that the principles which govern stay of execution in general ought to be principles which would govern stay of execution under Order 21, Rule 29, CPC. The petitioner is required to make out sufficient cause. Such cause is said to have been established if the party is able to prove that he would incur substantial loss; that there are fairly arguable questions; and that the petitioner has come without delay. Though no Court has exclusively laid down the principles on which stay is to be granted under Order 21, Rule 29, CPC, a cumulative reading of all the decisions would lead to an irresistible conclusion that a party has to establish substantial cause and sufficient reasons.

( 4 ) IN the touch-stone of the aforesaid principles, let us now examine the facts of the present case. The present opposite parties as plaintiffs had filed Title Suit No. 19 of 1980 in the court of the subordinate Judge (now Civil judge (Senior Division)), Bolangir inter alia praying for declaration of their right, title and Interest over the disputed land and for other ancillary reliefs. The present petitioner which is a Club was the sole defendant and was represented through its Secretary, one shyamadhar Sethi. The defendant appeared before the Court below, filed its written statement and contested the suit. The suit was decreed on contest by the judgment dated 21-6-1990 and the decree was sought to be executed in Execution Case No. 18 of 1994. No appeal having been filed against the judgment and decree of the said suit, the same became final and binding. During pendency of the said Execution Case, the petitioner club filed an