Bhuramal Agarwal S/O Shri ... vs M/S Alps Corporation
2022 Latest Caselaw 1954 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 263/2021

Bhuramal Agarwal S/o Shri Jagannath Prasad Agarwal, & Anr.
                                                                       ----Appellants
                                    Versus
M/s Alps Corporation through registered partnership firm,
                                                                      ----Respondent

For Appellant(s)           :    None present
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Tanay Jain for
                                Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                     Order

04/03/2022

Matter has come up for confirmation of stay order dated

20.09.2021, which was passed after hearing counsel for both

parties, which reads as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the parties on the stay application.

Having regard to submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the operation and execution of the impugned judgment dated 22.03.2021 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur (for short 'the trial Court') shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal subject to the condition that the appellants-defendants shall deposit the entire decretal amount with the trial Court within four weeks from today. If the said amount is not deposited by the appellants-defendants within the aforesaid period of four weeks, the stay order passed

(2 of 2) [CFA-263/2021]

by this Court today shall automatically stand vacated without any further reference to the Court.

After deposition of the aforesaid decretal amount, the same shall be invested in the FDR in a nationalised bank initially for a period of one year which shall be renewed from time to time. However, the respondent-plaintiff shall be at liberty to file an application for disbursement of the aforesaid decretal amount."

Learned counsel for respondent submits that appellants

have not deposited the decreetal amount in compliance of order

dated 20.09.2021, the stay order be vacated.

By perusal of order dated 20.09.2021, it is clear that the

court has already observed that if the appellant will not deposit

the decreetal amount, the stay order shall stand automatically

vacated. Therefore, no need to pass any separate order for

vacation of stay order. However, if appellants have deposited the

decreetal amount, the same may be disbursed to the respondent-

decree holder on furnishing a written undertaking that in case

appellants succeed in the appeal, they will restitute the amount,

so deposited by them.

Stay application stands disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

TN/30

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)