THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4775 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed A.S.No.134 of 2009 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry against the money decree dated 25.11.2008 passed in O.S.No.410 of 2006 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. He also filed I.A.No.1765 of 2009 in the said appeal under Order 41 Rule 5 C.P.C., seeking stay of operation of the judgment and decree passed in the above suit. The learned I Additional District Judge by the docket order dated 17.08.2009 stayed the operation of the money decree on condition that the petitioners deposit half of the decretal amount and suit costs. Questioning the correctness of the same, the present revision petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in Ex.A.3- acknowledgement since the word ‘hand loan’ has been substituted and the same was fabricated, the decree is liable to be reversed. Hence, the lower Court ought not to have passed the conditional stay. I do not see any force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once a decree has been passed accepting the claim, whether the decree is liable to be reversed or not can be gone into only in the main appeal but that cannot be a ground for staying the operation of decree in the appeal. Unless the appellate Court finds sufficient cause, an order for stay of execution of such decree cannot be passed. In view of the same, the discretion exercised by the lower Court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) 22nd October, 2009 Js.