RAJENDRA NATH MITTAL, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the decree -holders against the order of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ferozepur, dated April 29, 1978, whereby the petition of the judgment -debtors under Order 41, Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) has been accepted and sale of the property stayed.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts are the Sohan Singh, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 was murdered by Maluk Singh and Surain Singh, respondents. The petitioners instituted a suit for damages against the respondents and decree for Rs. 45,700/ - with costs was passed in their favour of February 28, 1977. An appeal against the decree was filed in this Court on July 8, 1977, which was admitted on September 9, 1977. The appeal is still pending. An application for execution was filed by the decree holders and in pursuance of that, land measuring about 38 killas belonging to the Judgment debtors was attached. An application under Order 41, Rule 6(2) of the Code was filed by the Judgment -debtors stating that the land attached was of the value of more than the decretal amount and in the circumstances the sale of the property be stayed. The learned executing Court stayed the execution on the ground that the attached land was more than sufficient for the satisfaction of the entire decretal amount. The decree -holders have come up in revision against the order of the executing Court to this Court.
(3.) IT is contended by Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioners that the Court could stay the execution only on such terms as to giving security or otherwise as the Court thought fit. According to the learned counsel, the Court could not stay the execution unless some security had been given for payment of the amount in addition to the attachment of the land. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Mst. Prito v. Iqbal Singh, (1978)80 R.L.R. 284, and Ranjit Singh v. Krishan Kumar, (1977)79 P.L.R. 734.;