Mere pendency of appeal does not stay execution under Order 41 Rule 5(1) CPC unless expressly ordered.

Headnote:The petition under Article 227 seeks expeditious disposal of execution proceedings in E.P.No.8 of 2025 arising from O.S.No.675 of 2023. Relevant provision is Order 41 Rule 5(1) CPC, stating mere pendency of appeal does not operate as stay of execution. Court reviewed report from Subordinate Judge revealing dismissed stay application and repeated adjournments due to pending appeal A.S.No.15 of 2025. Court found no stay granted by appellate or executing court, directing execution to proceed without further delay. Issue framed: Whether executing court can adjourn execution merely due to pendency of appeal. Ratio: Clear provision under Order 41 Rule 5(1) CPC mandates no automatic stay; execution deferred only if appellate court expressly directs abeyance of decree. Court emphasized adherence to Supreme Court directions in precedent case to ensure decree holder benefits promptly. Civil Revision Petition disposed of with direction to Principal Sub Judge, Srivilliputhur, to proceed with execution forthwith. No costs.

Table of Content
1. petition for expeditious execution disposal amid pending appeal. (Para 1 , 2)
2. no automatic stay from appeal pendency under cpc. (Para 3 , 4)
3. direct execution unless appellate stay; petition disposed. (Para 5)

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition seeks for expeditious disposal of E.P.No.8 of 2025 and O.S.No. 675 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge at Srivilliputthur.

2. Taking note of the pleas made by the Decree Holder, I called for a report from the learned Subordinate Judge at Srivilliputthur. The learned Subordinate Judge has sent a report on 16.03.2026. A perusal of the report shows that the Judgement Debtor had filed a stay application in E.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking to stay all further proceedings till the disposal of A.S.No.15 of 2025 on the file of the Additional District Court at Srivilliputthur. The report further reveals that the said stay application was dismissed on 03.07.2025. Thereafter, on account of the pendency of A.S.No.15 of 2025 and the stay petition filed therein, the execution petition has been adjourned repeatedly. It is posted to

09.06.2026.

3. The report reveals that no stay has been granted either by the appellate Court or by the Executing Court in terms of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. As per Order 41 Rule 5(1), mere pendency of an appeal will not operate as a stay of execution. When the provision of law is so clear, I fail to understand as to why the learned executing Judge is adjourning the matter on account of the pendency of the appeal. Hence, there shall be a direction to the executing Court to proceed further with the execution without waiting any further.

5. The execution petition shall be deferred only if the learned Additional District Judge, Srivilliputhur, before whom the appeal is pending, directs that the decree be kept in abeyance. The executing Court shall remember the directions given by the Supreme Court in Periyammal v. V.Rajamani, 2025 INSC 329, and shall ensure that the benefit of the decree is granted to the decree holder at the earliest.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31584

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASV.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, JMuthaiah Thevar (died) Murugan – AppellantVersusChokkalingam – RespondentCivil Revision Petition | E.P.No.8 of 2025 | O.S.No.675 of 2023 | A.S.No.15 of 2025 | E.A.No.1 of 2025

Mere pendency of appeal does not stay execution under Order 41 Rule 5(1) CPC unless expressly ordered.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J
Muthaiah Thevar (died) Murugan – Appellant
Versus
Chokkalingam – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition | E.P.No.8 of 2025 | O.S.No.675 of 2023 | A.S.No.15 of 2025 | E.A.No.1 of 2025