1. ' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---This civil appeal by leave of this Court is directed against an order, dated 30-1-1996 passed on Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos.1 and 2 of 1995 in Regular First Appeal No,56 of 1995 by a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby execution of decree, passed in favour of the respondent by learned Civil Judge First Class, Lahore, was suspended subject to the appellants' depositing decretal amount in trial Court by 29th February, 1996, and in case of default civil miscellaneous applications would stand dismissed with a further direction that in case amount is deposited same shall be paid to the decree-holder subject to his furnishing bank guarantee for its refund. The appellant/judgment-debtor being aggrieved by the above order has preferred this Civil appeal by leave of the Court.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs,31,65,168 against the appellants/defendants alleging that the said mount was payable to him on account of services rendered by him under agreement in Zone No,1 Rawalpindi Division for the periods:--
(a) 1-6-1964 to 31-5-1967.
(b) 1-6-1967 to 31-7-1970.
(c) 6-8-1970 to 5-8-1973.
(d) 6-8-1973 to 31-7-1974.
3. ' The appellants/defendants contested the suit but as per judgment and decree, dated 23-11-1994 the learned Civil Judge, First Class, Lahore decreed the suit with costs to the extent of Rs,22,14,072 plus interest/markup/compensation at the rate of 12 per cent. From the date of institution of the suit till its realization. The appellants/defendants preferred an appeal before the Lahore High Court, which was admitted to regular hearing and after notice to other side execution of decree was, stayed as per impugned order as stated above.
4. ' The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Government is exempted from furnishing security of the decretal amount, what to speak of its actual deposit in cash. He has referred to the provisions of Order XXVII, Rule 8-A, C.P.C. And placed reliance upon (i) Shafsal Enternrizes, Government Contractors v. Province of Punjab (1995 SCM R 708), (ii) Bundial Bus Services v. Sanjeeda Afzal (1975 SCM R 203), (iii) Banaris Khan v. Central Government (1986 SCM R 1805), (iv) Sadiq Sayeed Khan v. Central Government (1986 SCMR 1147), (v) Province of Punjab v.
5. Muhammad Jamil (PLD 1992 Lahore 300), and (vi) Government of Sindh v. Suresh (PLD 1997 Karachi 351).
6. ' The learned counsel for the respondent, in reply, referred to rules 5 and 6 or Order XLI, C.P.C. And submitted that execution of decree could be stayed on sufficient cause being shown but in the instant case the appellants did not even state in the application made that they would suffer substantial loss if execution of the decree was not stayed. He further submitted that Order XXVII, Rule 8-A, C.P.C. Is subject to condition that the judgment-debtor would make out a case for stay of decree as provided under rule 5 of Order XLI, C.P.C. In the end, he submitted that the High Court has exercised its discretion on sound principles of law governing the stay of execution of money decree pending challenge in appeal, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court.
7. Rule 8-A of Order XXVII, C.P.C. Is to be read with Rules 5 and 6 of Order XLI, C.P.C. For making out a case for stay of execution of money decree as there cannot be automatic grant of stay of execution of decree in case appeal is filed by the Government or any public officer and only when case for stay of decree is made out such discretion may be exercised and stay Of execution can be ordered without ordering furnishing of security if the appellant happened to. Be Government or public servant and a convincing ground is made out.
8. ' We find that the High Court has exercised the discretion on sound principles of law governing the stay of execution of money decrees, considering that the High Court was satisfied that the appellants have not been able to show sufficient cause and further they would not sustain substantial loss within the meaning of Rule 5 of Order XLI, C.P.C. If the stay of execution is not ordered. We find that the impugned order is just, fair and in proper exercise of jurisdiction, consequently no exception can be taken to it. In the circumstances, this appeal has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.