IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32729 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AS.58/2008 of SUB COURT, VADAKARA OS.4/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- GEETHA, W/O.KUMARAN, KAREECHERI HOUSE, EDACHERI AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- V.PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O.GOPALAN, VALIYA PARAMBATH HOUSE, NADAKKUTHAZHA AMSOM, PUDUPPANAM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32729 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the appellant in A.S No. 58 of 2008 on the file of Sub Court, Vadakara. The appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment passed in O.S No.4 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Vadakara. Suit was one for money and it was decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. In the appeal, petitioner/appellant sought for an interim stay of execution of the decree moving an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That application was allowed by the court below vide Ext.P1 order directing the petitioner/appellant to furnish security for the decree amount. Challenging the propriety of Ext.P1 order the writ petition has been filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and hence it is W.P.(C).No.32729 OF 2009 Page numbers dispensed with. On the trial side, the motor vehicle in respect of which the suit claim was raised had been attached before judgment and later it was released to the petitioner on furnishing of security by execution of surety bonds by two Government employees, and so much so, insistence for furnishing further security in the appeal as directed in Ext.P1 order is not warranted, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am not impressed with the submission made by the counsel. Releasing the vehicle lifting the attachment for enjoyment of the petitioner is different from the direction given in his application moved under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying the operation of the decree passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Decree being passed in a suit for money, no stay can be granted by the court without complying with the mandate covered under Sub rule 3 of Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the court below. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE vdv