Facts
The petitioners (original defendants) were aggrieved by an ex-parte decree dated 05.03.2024 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch, in Commercial Civil Suit No. 7 of 2023, directing a recovery of Rs. 39,34,194.82 plus interest.
Source reference: p. 1-2The petitioners challenged this decree before the Commercial Appellate Division.
Source reference: p. 2Pending the appeal, they filed an application (Exh. 5) under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC seeking a stay on the execution of the decree.
Source reference: p. 2On 23.12.2025, the Appellate Court granted the stay but conditioned it upon the petitioners depositing the entire decreetal amount with interest within two weeks.
Source reference: p. 2The petitioners moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing that such an "onerous condition" caused manifest injustice, especially since they had a strong case on merits regarding improper service of summons and jurisdictional issues.
Source reference: p. 3Issues
Whether the Commercial Appellate Division committed a jurisdictional or legal error under Article 227 by conditioning the stay of a money decree on the deposit of the full decreetal amount.
Source reference: p. 4 / para. 7Whether the High Court, in its supervisory jurisdiction, should examine the merits of an underlying pending appeal to determine the fairness of interim conditions.
Source reference: p. 3-4 / para. 6-8Law Applied
The court applied Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs the stay of execution of a decree during an appeal.
Source reference: p. 2It specifically relied on the Supreme Court precedent in *Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Amazon Technologies Inc.* (2025 SCC Online SC 2153), which establishes guidelines for Appellate Courts when granting a stay on the execution of money decrees, typically requiring security or deposit.
Source reference: p. 4 / para. 7Furthermore, the court restricted its review to the parameters of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which provides for extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction but precludes a merits-based re-evaluation of pending litigation.
Source reference: p. 1, 5 / para. 8Reasoning
The High Court refused to engage with the petitioners' arguments regarding the merits of the suit (e.g., quality of goods or territorial jurisdiction), stating that doing so would overstep the limited scope of Article 227 and potentially influence the pending appeal.
Source reference: p. 3-5The Court reasoned that the Appellate Division’s "prima facie satisfaction" regarding the petitioners' arguable points was precisely what led to the grant of the stay; however, a stay on a money decree is not an absolute right and is subject to the Appellate Court's discretion.
Source reference: p. 4Relying on the *Lifestyle Equities* guidelines, the High Court found that the condition to deposit the decreetal amount was a standard legal application of Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC.
Source reference: no citationThe Court concluded that "justice" and "injustice" are relative terms in this context and the lower court’s order did not constitute a manifest error of law or jurisdiction.
Source reference: p. 5Holding
The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Appellate Court acted within its jurisdiction and in accordance with established Supreme Court guidelines for staying money decrees.
The High Court held that it would not invoke its supervisory jurisdiction to bypass the condition of deposit simply because the petitioners claimed a strong case on merits.
Source reference: p. 4-5No order as to costs was made.
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
Jai Mata Engineering Limited & Anr. v. McKeown Engineering Private Limited [R/Special Civil Application No. 2998 of 2026]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in