Messrs ARKWAYS (PVT.) LIMITED vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against an interim order passed by the High Court in a Regular First Appeal, which stayed the operation of a money decree passed in the petitioner's favour during the pendency of the appeal. The core legal question concerns the propriety of staying the execution of a money decree pending appeal. The Supreme Court held that while the ordinary rule and practice is that the execution of a money decree should not be stayed, recognized exceptions do exist, and the High Court was conscious of both the rule and its exceptions. The Court disposed of the petition by permitting the petitioner to approach the High Court by filing an application for variation of the interim order, either to seek its withdrawal or its substitution with an order safeguarding the petitioner's financial interests should the respondent's appeal fail. The key principle laid down is that although execution of money decrees is ordinarily not stayed, interim orders may incorporate measures to safeguard the decree-holder's interest.
- Should the execution of a money decree ordinarily be stayed during the pendency of an appeal?
- Can the High Court make exceptions to the ordinary rule against staying money decrees?
- What remedy is available to a decree-holder when an interim stay of a money decree is granted without safeguarding their financial interest?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against an interim order passed by the High Court in a Regular First Appeal; whereby the operation of a money decree passed in petitioner's favour was stayed during the pendency of appeal.
2. Learned counsel seems right that ordinarily execution of money decree is not stayed but the learned Judge in the High Court was conscious of this rule as well as the exceptions applicable thereto. He also relied on Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi v. Messrs A.
3. Ismail Jee and Sons Ltd. PLD 1976 Lah. 1427. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the contrary has relied on two judgments of this Court. They are Chaudhry Altaf Hussain v. Mirza Azam Baig 1983 SCM R 643 and Banaras Khan v. Central Government 1986 SCM R 1805.
4. We, after asking some questions regarding merits of the case do agree that ordinarily money decree should not be stayed and same is the ordinary rule and practice of this Court. But it cannot be said that there have been no exceptions. Be that as it may, ultimately learned counsel agreed that in order to safeguard the interest of the petitioner to which the High Court perhaps inadvertently did not pay any attention, the petitioner be permitted to make an application in the High Court for variation of the interim order seeking both the reliefs; either, for the withdrawal of the impugned order or its substitution with an order safeguarding the interest of the petitioner in case the appeal of the respondent ultimately fails in the High Court. It is a reasonable approach. We, while approving the same, dispose of this petition accordingly.