Stay of decree granted conditionally upon timely deposit of the decretal principal amount.

The petitioners, who were the original appellants in Regular Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2026, invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 19 August 2026 passed below Exhibit 5 by the Principal District Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar.

They sought a stay of the judgment and decree dated 5 May 2026 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 25 of 2019 and of the consequential execution proceedings in Execution Petition No. 22 of 2026.

During the hearing, the petitioners agreed to deposit ₹5,00,000, being the principal decretal amount, before the Appellate Court on or before 9 October 2026.

The respondent consented to a stay of execution upon such deposit, while requesting expeditious disposal of the appeal and liberty to seek withdrawal of the deposited amount if the appeal was not decided within a reasonable time.

Whether the operation and execution of the judgment and decree dated 5 May 2026 should be stayed pending disposal of Regular Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2026 upon the petitioners depositing the principal decretal amount?

Whether the deposited amount should be secured by investment in a Community FDR and whether the respondent should have liberty to seek withdrawal if the appeal was not decided by 31 March 2027?

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over the proceedings before the subordinate Appellate Court.

It applied the general principle governing stay of execution of a decree pending appeal: a stay may be granted subject to conditions that adequately protect the successful decree-holder, including deposit or security of the decretal amount.

The Court also applied the procedural principle that, where the parties arrive at consensus regarding the conditions for interim protection, the Court may grant relief on those agreed terms without examining the merits of the underlying appeal.

The Court noted that the petitioners were judgment-debtors pursuing a statutory appeal and had offered to deposit ₹5,00,000, representing the principal decretal amount.

Since the respondent expressly had no objection to a stay upon such deposit, the Court considered the deposit an adequate protective condition and granted a stay of the decree and its execution.

To preserve the respondent’s interest, the amount was directed to be invested in a Community FDR in the name of the Nazir until the final disposal of the appeal or further orders of the Appellate Court; the amount, together with interest, was to be paid to the successful party.

The Court further accepted the request for expeditious disposal and permitted the respondent to apply for withdrawal if the appeal remained undecided on or before 31 March 2027.

Since the order was based on consensus, the Court expressly refrained from examining the merits of the dispute.

The judgment and decree dated 5 May 2026 in Special Civil Suit No. 25 of 2019, along with its execution, were stayed on the condition that the petitioners deposit ₹5,00,000 before the Appellate Court by 9 October 2026; failure to comply would automatically vacate the stay.

Upon deposit, the amount was to be invested in a Community FDR in the Nazir’s name until the appeal’s final outcome.

The Appellate Court was requested to decide Regular Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2026 expeditiously, and the respondent was granted liberty to seek withdrawal of the amount if the appeal was not decided by 31 March 2027.

No order as to costs was made.