' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---This is an appeal by leave of the Court against the judgment dated 27-4- 1992 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in CM No,1-C/92 in R.F.A. No,18 of 1992.
2. Appellant on 19-2-1986 filed a suit for recovery of Rs,1,01,98,209 along with interest at the rate of 14 per cent. Per annum against the respondent which was resisted on a number of pleas. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 23-12-1991 passed a decree in favor of the appellant and against the respondent as prayed for. The aforementioned judgment and decree was challenged in R.F.A. No,18 of 1992 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore and along with the appeal the respondent filed an application (C.M. No,1-C of 1992) under Order LXI, Rule 5(1) of the C.P.C. For suspension of the judgment and decree impugned. The learned Appellate Court was pleased to admit the appeal for regular hearing and directed that "execution of the decree is stayed subject to notice and the appellants eprnirity in terms of Order 41, Rule 5(1)(c) C.P.G. On or before 25-2-1992 to the satisfaction of the learned executing Court'', ' After hearing the parties the learned. High Court vide order dated 27-4-1992 confirmed the order and stayed the execution of the decree subject to the respondents furnishing security in the sum of Rs,2,00,00,000 to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court within 3 months. Leave was granted on the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the reason given by the High Court for staying the money decree under Order LXI, Rule 5, C.P.C. That the respondent is a public limited company and substantial losS will be caused if an order of staying the execution is not made, 'was hardly sufficient to justify the order of stay passed by the Court. In support of the contention reliance was placed on an unreported judgment in C.P.346-R of 1985, decided on 28th April, 1986 (Federation of Pakistan and others v. Malik Faiz Ahmad), decided by a Bench of 5 Humble Judges of this Court.
4. Without going into detailed merits of the case the main contention Wised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the ground which prevailed with the learned High Court in staying the execution of the decree was that the respondent is a public limited company and substantial loss would result if execution of the decree was not stayed. Such ground could hardly be a ground justifying stay of execution of money decree. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provision i,e, Rule 5 of Order XLI of the C.P.C. Which is as under:-- "5. Stay by _ppellate Court:--(1) An appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the Appellate Court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree; but the Appellate Court may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such decree.
(2) Stay by Court which passed the decree.--Where an application is made for stay of execution of an appealable decree before the expiration of the time allowed for appealing therefrom, the Court which passed the decree may on sufficient cause being shown order the execution to be stayed.
(3) No order for stay of execution shall be made under sub-rule (I) or sub-rule (2) unless the Court making it is satisfied--
(a) that substantial loss may result to the party applying for stay of execution unless the order is made;
(b) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and
(c) that security has been given by the application for the due Performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (3), the Court may make an ex parte order of execution pending the hearing of the application. "
5. From the bare reading of the above it can be safely said that an order staying execution of a money decree is discretionary with the Court but such discretion has to be exercised in a judicial manner and for that reason it has been made obligatory that the Court shall be satisfied by reasonable grounds that "substantial loss" will accrue if stay is not granted. It will be for the appellant to satisfy the Court and for that tangible grounds shall be stated so as to satisfy Court of the substantial loss would be caused in not granting the stay order. Mere reference of the word of "substantial loss" will accrue if stay is not granted, is not sufficient compliance of the duty cast on the applicant seeking stay of the execution decree without elaborate such ground or grounds. No doubt as argued by the learned counsel for the respondent substantial loss is different from irreparable loss as for as satisfaction of the Court is concerned, but that by itself does not absolve an applicant from expressly stating the fact leading to substantial loss being sustained in absence of stay of execution of decree. Even in "Federation of Pakistan - Petitioner v. Malik Faiz. Ahmad - Respondent", the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant it has been observed:-- "It cannot be denied that it is an established rule of practice not to stay the execution of money decree in absence of special circumstances. The obvious reason behind this rule is that in terms of Order XL1, Rule 5, C.P.C. Execution cannot be stayed unless the Court is satisfied that substantial loss may otherwise result to the judgment-debtor. It has been laid down that such loss must be tangible and not a mere annoyance to the feelings."
' That case too was disposed of on the agreement of the parties, converting the petition for leave to appeal into an appeal, staying the execution of the decree subject to the deposit of decrial amount in the executing Court with conditions provided therein for payment to the decree-holder.
5. It, therefore, transpires from the above that there is no absolute bar in staying the execution of the decree and in case the Court is satisfied, after hearing the parties, that substantial loss would occur the discretion can be exercised favor of the judgment-debtor.
6. In the instant case though the element of substantial loss has not been stated in the application in so many words but it transpired that such elements were put forward before the Court at the time of hearing of arguments of the parties. It was for that reason that the learned High Court has observed that respondent being a limited company would face great difficulty which will amount to substantial loss if execution is not stayed. It was rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that in case the stay had not been granted and the respondent-company had not been in a position to pay the decrial amount, which is under appeal, the natural consequences would have been liquidation, attachment or auction of the limited company which would have resulted in interruption in the smooth running of the Mills and deprived large number of laborer employed in the concern. Mores, when the respondent has already furnished tangible security to the satisfaction of the executing Court, the discretion exercised by the learned High Court, in the circumstances, need no interference. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.