UKHC010026732026 2026:UHC:5798 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/420/2026 Naresh Singh Dafauti --Petitioner Versus Madhan Singh --Respondent Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for the respondent. 3. Petitioner has challenged order dated 16.12.2025, passed by learned District Judge, Bageshwar in Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2025. By the said order, while admitting the appeal, Appellate Court stayed the execution of the impugned decree, subject to petitioner depositing 40% of the decretal amount. 4. Petitioner contends that the condition imposed by Appellate Court while granting stay of decree is bad in law, and blanket order of stay should have been passed in favour of petitioner. 5. The submission made by learned counsel for petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law. 6. Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for stay by Appellate Court. Rule 5 of Order 41 was amended by Allahabad High Court, vide notification dated 03.10.1993. Rule 5, as amended by the said notification, is UKHC010026732026 2026:UHC:5798 reproduced below:- “(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-rules where the appeal is against a decree for payment of money, the Appellate Court shall not make an order staying the execution of the decree, unless the appellant shall, within such time as the Appellate Court may allow, deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish such security in respect thereof as the Appellate Court may think fit.” 7. Since petitioner had challenged a money decree, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Appellate Court to ask petitioner to deposit the decretal amount. In the present case, learned Appellate Court taking a very lenient approach asked the petitioner to deposit only 40% of the decretal amount. The condition imposed by learned District Judge is strictly as per provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Thus, the challenge thrown by petitioner to the condition imposed is without any substance. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 14.07.2026 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb 4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653 D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.07.16 19:18:49 +05'30'