The executing court has the discretion to impose terms on the judgment debtors before granting a stay of sale of property under Order 41, Rule 6(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

G.C.Garg, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated November 19,1991 of the executing court whereby an application under Order 41, Rule 6(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by the judgment debtors has been dismissed.

2. Few facts giving rise to the controversy may be noticed as under:-

M/S. Jaspal Singh and Brothers, Commission Agents filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 8,79,168.30 paise including interest against the petitioners and others. Suit was decreed on August 12,1989. Regular First Appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court is pending final disposal in this Court. In appeal, an application was moved by the judgment debtors for staying the execution of the decree. The application was considered by N.C. Jain, J. on January 9,1990. His Lordship passed the following order:-

" This is an application for staying the execution of the decree. Since money decree has been impugned, therein no ground for stay. However, the amount being heavy, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the decree-holders to furnish bank guarantee before the amount is withdrawn. If the decretal amount is not deposited, the decree holders would naturally be entitled to take recourse to the ordinary law of execution."

This order was not complied with. Consequently, properties of the judgment debtors were attached in execution, and proceedings for sale thereof initiated. It was at .this stage, the judgment debtors moved an application under Order 41, Rule 6(2) of the Code for staying sale of the immoveable property. This application was considered and dismissed by order under revision having regard to the order passed by this Court in appeal, as reproduced above.

3 Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon Shankar Dass v. Kasturi, A.I.R. 1925 Lab. 69; Jangir Singh Ganda Singh and Ors. v. Mst. Nihai Kaur, A.I.R. 1965 Punj. 438, Prahlad Kumar and Anr. v. Avtar Krishan (1985-2) 88 P.L.R. 491 contended that the executing Court erred in dismissing the application only by having regard to the order passed by this Court in an application under Order 41, Rule 5 of the Code for staying the execution of the sale. The executing Court could not have dismissed the application only on the aforesaid ground. It ought to have passed an appropriate order in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Order 41. Learned Counsel further argued that it was imperative on the executing Court to stay sale of property on such terms as to giving security or otherwise as it could think fit, until the appeal was disposed of. Since the property of the judgment debtors bad already been attached, this in itself was a sufficient security to satisfy the decree and, therefore, there should not have any hitch for the executing Court to stay sale thereof till the decision of the appeal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in the petition. Though the executing Court dismissed the application under Order 41, Rule 6(2) of the Code primarily on the ground that the order of this Court, as reproduced above, had not been complied with by the judgment debtors and though it did not go into the matter whether the sale was liable to be stayed on terms as to giving security or otherwise until the decision of the appeal by this Court, yet no much fault can be found with the conclusion arrived at. It could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners that the sale could be stayed by the executing Court under Order 41, Rule 6(2) of the Code on terms as to giving security or otherwise as the it might think fit. True, the executing Court has not put any such terms as the application was dismissed only on the ground that earlier order passed by this Court had not been complied with, but this Court while considering the matter can certainly dispose of the application on such terms as to furnishing security or otherwise as the facts of the case may require. The decree in this case is a money decree and the amount i