MESSRS BUNDIAL BUS SERVICEs vs Mst. SANJEEDA AFZAL AND OTHERS
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which refused to stay the execution of a money decree awarded as damages and compensation for a fatal accident caused by rash and negligent driving. The petitioners, against whom the decree was passed, sought a stay of execution pending the disposal of their appeal. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the stay, thereby allowing the decree-holders to realize the decretal amount. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the High Court had balanced the interests of both parties by allowing the decree-holders to receive the funds while requiring them to furnish sufficient security for reimbursement should the appeal succeed. The Court emphasized that decree-holders should not be deprived of the fruits of their decree, particularly when the breadwinner had been lost years prior, and that the petitioners' interests were adequately safeguarded by the security requirement. The petition was dismissed as lacking merit.
- Does the refusal to stay the execution of a money decree pending appeal constitute a valid exercise of judicial discretion?
- Should a decree-holder be permitted to execute a money decree while an appeal is pending if the interests of the judgment-debtor are protected by security?
- Is the potential for a 'paper-decree' a relevant consideration for a court when deciding whether to stay the execution of a judgment?
1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court refusing to stay execution of decree passed against the petitioners herein pending disposal of their appeal. The decree was passed on 20th March, 1973 for payment of Rs, 1,57,000 as damages and compensation on account of accident, by rash and negligent act, in which Khawaja Muhammad Afzal, husband of respondent No, 1 and father of respondents 2 to 5 was killed. Khawaja Muhammad Afzal at the time he met his death by accident was posted as Executive Engineer (Irrigation) Kalabagh Division, District Mian wali.
2. High Court has held that there is "no case for stay" and "thus depriving the decree-holders of the fruit of the decree". It has, however, been directed that the decretal amount, if deposited in Court, shall not be paid to the decree-holders, unless sufficient security for re-imbursement is furnished by them.
3. We find that High Court has exercised its discretion on sound principles of law governing execution of money decrees pending their challenge on appeal. Decree-holders lost their bread-winner long ago, on 31st January, 1968. And it is only proper that they should reap fruits of the decree passed in their favour, rather than just have a "paper-decree" to console themselves for the time-being. The interest of petitioners has also been adequately safe-guarded in the eventuality of their success in appeal in the High Court.
4. ' There is, therefore, no merit in this petition. It is dismissed.