Dr. Y.S. Chitale, T.U. Mehta, P.H. Parekh, Suresh Daluja, M.N. Shroff and Girish Chandra for the Respondents.
953 of 1985 but before any order was made thereon, the appellant decree holder levied execution of the decree in Execution Application No.
In the absence of an order of stay the decree was executable and the judgement debtor deposited the decreetal dues in the Executing Court.
From the Judgment and order dated 11 23.4.
The following order of the Court was delivered O R D E R Special leave granted.
3 is ordered to pay Rs.59,69,422.59 to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 6 from the date of the suit till realisation of the amount by the plaintiff.
On 21st of March, 1986, the High Court passed an order of stay of execution in the pending application, C.A., 953 of 1985, and on the 23rd of April, 1986, the impugned order was made directing refund of the amount deposited by the State Government in the Executing Court.
On 5th of March, 1986, the State Government deposited the decreetal amount of Rs.88,92,280 in the Executing Court and moved the High Court for an order of stay of further proceedings in execution and for restraining the decree holder from withdrawing the amount from the Executing Court by alleging that in the event of reversal of the trial companyrts decree in appeal it would be difficult for the State Government to recover the amount.
The defendant No.
Challenge is to the order directing refund.
240 of 1985.
An application for stay of execution of the operation of the decree was filed by the State of Gujarat being C.A. No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1993 of 1983 against the decree and it is pending disposal.
The appellant, a nationalised Bank, obtained a decree in Civil Suit No.
3 shall pay the proportionate companyts of the suit to the plaintiff and bear its own .
The State of Gujarat has filed a First Appeal in the High Court of Gujarat being First Appeal No.
Order 41 Rule 5 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides An appeal shall number operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the Appellate Court may order, number shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been prefer red from the decree but the Appellate Court may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such decree.
Ordinarily in a matter of this jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution would number have been permitted to be invoked but having heard learned companynsel for the parties we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this matter, the order of the High Court should be reversed by allowing the appeal.
1986 of the Gujarat High Court in C.A. No.
3 and the defendant No.
106 Soli J. Sorabjee, M.V. Singhvi, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, J. Mehta, R.F. Nariman, D.M. Shah and Rajan Karanjawala for the Appellant.
1169 of 1977 from the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad against several defendants including the State of Gujarat.
So far as the defendant State is companycerned, the decree ran thus The suit is partly decreed against the defendant No.
2200 of 1987.
953 of 1985.
