IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL  NO. 4445   OF 2008

[Arising out of SLP(C) No.4193/2007]

RAMA AUTOMOBILES ... APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

KAILASH MOTORS FINANCE LTD. AND ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The only question which arises for our consideration is as to whether the

High Court was right in directing the appellant to deposit the entire decreetal amount.

Mr.  Mariaputham,  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  appellant

would  submit  that  the  High  Court  committed  a  serious  error  in  issuing  the  said

direction as it failed to take into consideration the proviso appended to Sub-rule (3) of

Rule 1 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), as amended by the State of

Maharashtra, which is in the following terms:

“Provided that the Court may dispense with the deposit or

security where it deems fit to do so for sufficient cause.”

-2-

It is true that the High Court in its order did not consider this aspect of the

matter, as it was of the opinion that the entire decreetal amount should be  deposited

and then and then only the operation of the decree can be stayed.  

However, in view of the proviso appended to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order

41 of CPC, it is evident that  sufficient cause must exist for issuing such a direction.

Having heard the learned counsel  for the parties  and having perused the

petition and the counter affidavit, we are of the opinion that there does not exist any

cause far less sufficient cause to invoke the proviso.  

We, therefore, uphold the order of the High Court. However, the appellant is

given eight weeks' time to deposit the balance amount as it is stated at the Bar that

50% of the principal amount has already been deposited.  

The appeal is dismissed with the aforementioned direction.

..........................J (S.B. SINHA)

..........................J   (CYRIAC JOSEPH)    NEW DELHI, JULY 14, 2008.