Rajendera Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class Muktsar, dated August 7, 1977, by which an application of the judgment -debtor under order 41, rule 6(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), for staying the execution proceedings, has been dismissed.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the present case are that a decree for the recovery of Rs. 40,000/ - was passed in favour of Krishan Kumar against Ranjit Singh, judgment -debtor. In execution of the decree, land measuring 87 Kanals and 2 marlas was got attached by the decree -holder. The judgment -debtor filed an application under Order 41, rule 6(2) of the Code stating that he had filed an appeal against the decree in this Court and that in execution of the decree, attachment had been effected. In the circumstances, he prayed that the sale of the land be stayed till the decision of the appeal. The application was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge vide the impugned order. The judgment -debtor has come up in revision against the said order to this Court. The only contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Order 41, rule 6 (2) is mandatory and the executing Court was bound to stay the execution after the attachment had been effected on furnishing of security or otherwise as the Court thought fit. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I find force in the contention of the Learned Counsel. Order 41, rule 6 (2) reads as follows: - Where an order has been made for the sale of immovable property in execution of a decree, and an appeal is pending from such decree, the sale shall, on the application of the judgment -debtor to the Court which made the order, be stayed on such terms as to giving security or otherwise as the court thinks fit until the appeal is disposed of. From the reading of the rule, it is apparent that it is incumbent on the executing Court to stay the sale of the attached property on giving security or otherwise as the Court thinks fit, until the appeal is disposed of, in case an application is made by the judgment -debtor before the said Court. In this view I get support from a judgment of this Court in Jagir Singh and others v. Mst. Nihal Kaur, (1965) 67 P.L.R. 460. The Court, it appears, did not properly interpret the aforesaid sub -rule. After taking into consideration the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Court is patently incorrect and liable to be set aside.
(3.) IT is well -said that the trouble of the decree -holder starts after the decree has been passed in his favour. I think it will be appropriate if the judgment -debtor deposits the amount of Rs. 20,000/ - in three instalments and furnish security for the balance. The first instalment of Rs. 10,000/ - Mr. Sarin agrees to deposit in the executing Court by January 31, 1978. The remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/ - will be deposited by the judgment -debtor in two equal instalments of Rs. 5,000/ - each, on or before June 30, 1978 and January 31, 1979. He will furnish security regarding the balance amount of Rs. 20,000/ - to the satisfaction of the executing Court by January 31, 1978, which may be accepted after notice to the decree -holder. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the amount or furnish the security ordered above, the stay order shall stand vacated. The amount, if deposited by the judgment -debtor, be paid to the decree -holder on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the executing Court which may be accepted after notice to the judgment -debtor. The auction of the property is stayed subject to the above condition, but the attachment shall continue.;