CRP 287/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BP KATAKEY Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent de spite service of notice. The petitioner, by the present petition, has challenged the order dated 14.5.200 7 and 12.6.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Hailakandi in MA(Money App eal) No. 25/2006. By order dated 14.5.2007, the learned District Judge, Hailakandi directed the pr esent petitioner to deposit 50% of the decreetal amount, as the appeal was again st a Money decree of Rs.1,50,000, fixing 2.7.2007 for depositing 50% of such dec reetal amount. By order dated 12.6.2008 the learned court below has refused to a dmit the appeal on the ground that the order dated 14.5.2007 has not been compli ed with i.e. 50% of the decreetal amount has not been deposited. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since after admit ting the appeal for hearing by the order dated 21.5.2004 passed in RFA No. 48/20 04 the said proceeding was transmitted to the learned District Judge, in view of enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction, the learned court below cannot pass the order for depositing 50% of the decreetal amount and refuse to admit the app eal on the ground of non depositing the same. It appears that RFA No. 48/2004 was filed by the present petitioner challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.9.2003 passed Money Suit No. 20/2001. The said appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 21.5.2004 subject to condonatio n of delay of 45 days in preferring the appeal. No interim order passed by this Court could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The fact r emains that the delay in preferring the appeal before this Court was not condone d. At that stage the said proceeding was transmitted to the court of the learned District Judge in view of the enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge, thereafter by order dated 14.5.2007 has directed the present petitioner, who is the appellant in the said proceeding, to deposit 50% of the decreetal amount, the appeal being against a money decree. No illegality has been committed by the learned court below in directing deposit of 50% of the decreetal amount in the absence of failure of the petitioner to d raw the attention of the court that this Court had passed any order in RFA No. 4 8/2004 staying execution of the decree passed by the learned trial court. The le arned court below, however, ought not to have refused to admit the said appeal f or non-deposit of the said amount, as the appeal has already been admitted for h earing by order dated 21.5.2004 by this Court, which proceeding was subsequently transmitted to the court of the learned District Judge, Hailakandi. The learned court below is, however, required to deal with the application filed under Sect ion 5 of the Limitation Act as the delay has not been condoned by this Court. The learned counsel at this stage has submitted that instead of directing deposi t of 50% of the decreetal amount the applicant may be allowed to furnish a bank guarantee. Prayer is allowed. The appellant shall furnish a bank guarantee covering 50% of the decreetal amoun t by 30.11.2010 to the satisfaction of the learned District Judge, Hailakandi. The learned court below in the event of failure of the petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee, shall proceed to decide the application filed seeking condonati on of delay in filing the appeal. The respondent shall in that case be at libert y to proceed with the execution proceeding despite pendency of the appeal. The revision petition accordingly stands disposed of.