Skip to content


Dhunjibhoy Cowasji Umrigargh Vs. Lisboa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1889)ILR13Bom241
AppellantDhunjibhoy Cowasji Umrigargh
RespondentLisboa
Excerpt:
practice - stay of execution of decree--appeal--decree for injunction, damages and costs--slay of execution as to costs. - .....not be granted. we make an order in this case accordingly. the costs of this application will be costs in the appeal.2. the following order was made:it is ordered that on the respondent giving security for the sum of rupee three thousand, eight hundred and forty-four, annas fourteen and pies three to the satisfaction of the acting prothonotary of this honourable court ion or before friday, the seventh day of september one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight, the said application be refused ; and it is farther ordered that, in default of he said respondent giving security within the time aforesaid, execution of the said decree so far as it relates to costs be stayed, and that the said appellant do deposit with the prothonotary of this court the sum of rupees three thousand eight.....
Judgment:

Charles Sargent, C.J.

1. Where a decree orders payment of money and an appeal is lodged against that decree by the party directed to pay, we think that on his application the execution of the decree should be stayed so far as it directs payment on his lodging the amount in Court, unless the other party gives security for the repayment of the money in the event of the decree being reversed. If such security be given by the successful party, then stay of execution should not be granted. We make an order in this case accordingly. The costs of this application will be costs in the appeal.

2. The following order was made:

It is ordered that on the respondent giving security for the sum of rupee three thousand, eight hundred and forty-four, annas fourteen and pies three to the satisfaction of the Acting Prothonotary of this Honourable Court Ion or before Friday, the seventh day of September one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight, the said application be refused ; and it is farther ordered that, in default of he said respondent giving security within the time aforesaid, execution of the said decree so far as it relates to costs be stayed, and that the said appellant do deposit with the Prothonotary of this Court the sum of rupees three thousand eight hundred and forty-four, annas fourteen and pies three, being the amount Of the taxed costs of the above suit. And it is further ordered that the costs of this application be costs in the appeal, and it is lastly ordered that the costs of this application be costs in the appeal, and it is lastly ordered that execution of the said decree as regards the said costs be stayed until the said seventh day of September one thousand eight hunded and eighty-nine.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //