C.R. No. 645 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 645 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 25, 2009 Sukhjeet Singh …..Petitioner Vs. M/s Subhash Chander Yogesh Kumar …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Ms. Ravinder K. Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the respondent. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order dated December 3, 2008, the Executing Court while hearing the objections of petitioner- judgment debtor, has ordered that the execution of the decree for a sum of Rs.320651/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum would remain stayed during the pendency of an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC filed by the judgment debtor- petitioner. C.R. No. 645 of 2009 [2] Counsel for the petitioner has contended that vide order dated November 18, 2006 passed by the Executing Court, the judgment debtor was directed to furnish surety to the tune of Rs.2.50 lacs with one surety. It has been urged that interest of the decree holder/ respondent stood secured on November 18, 2006. It was not appropriate to pass the impugned order dated December 3, 2008. I have heard counsel for the petitioner. It is apparent from the record that the order dated November 18, 2006 was passed in the execution proceedings whereas the order dated December 3, 2008 was passed when an application for stay was filed in proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the judgment and decree dated May 23, 2005. It is the prerogative of the Court while deciding an application for stay in proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to require an applicant to either deposit part of the decretal amount or to safeguard the interests of the decree holder in any other manner. In the present case, taking into consideration the date of the decree i.e. July 23, 2005 and the decretal amount i.e. Rs.320651/- the trial Court seems to have fairly exercised the discretion vested in it. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order by virtue of which the interests of the decree holder who had obtained a money decree on July 23, 2005, have been secured. Revision petition is thus dismissed. August 25, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE