Rama Automobiles Vs.
Kailash Motors Finance Ltd & Ors.  INSC 1121 (14 July 2008)
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4445 OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.4193/2007]
RAMA AUTOMOBILES ... APPELLANT(S) :VERSUS:
The only question
which arises for our consideration is as to whether the High Court was right in
directing the appellant to deposit the entire decreetal amount.
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the High
Court committed a serious error in issuing the said direction as it failed to
take into consideration the proviso appended to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order
41 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), as amended by the State of Maharashtra,
which is in the following terms:
the Court may dispense with the deposit or security where it deems fit to do so
for sufficient cause."
-2- It is true that
the High Court in its order did not consider this aspect of the matter, as it was
of the opinion that the entire decreetal amount should be deposited and then
and then only the operation of the decree can be stayed.
However, in view of
the proviso appended to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 41 of CPC, it is
evident that sufficient cause must exist for issuing such a direction.
Having heard the
learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition and the counter
affidavit, we are of the opinion that there does not exist any cause far less
sufficient cause to invoke the proviso.
We, therefore, uphold
the order of the High Court. However, the appellant is given eight weeks' time
to deposit the balance amount as it is stated at the Bar that 50% of the
principal amount has already been deposited.
The appeal is
dismissed with the aforementioned direction.
DELHI, JULY 14, 2008.
Pages: 1 2 3