Judgement This was a petition by the appellants, who had obtained special leave to appeal from a decree of the High Court (December 11, 1908) which awarded to the plaintiff respondent Madhu Sudan Sen possession of, amongst other properties, a one-seventh share in No. 116, Cotton Street, with mesne profits, subsequently ascertained to be Bs.3723. Part of this sum was paid, and the decree-holder took out execution in respect of the balance. No. 116, Cotton Street being in the hands of a receiver, the appellants applied to the High Court that execution should be stayed on terms pending the decision of the appeal to His Majesty in Council. The High Court observed " In s. 608 of C. C. P., 1882, the powers pending an appeal were vested in the Court admitting the appeal so that when the appeal had been admitted by special leave from the Judicial Committee this Court should not be regarded as coming within that description. In Order xlv., r. 13, the words admitting the appeal have been omitted, and as is well known designedly omitted for the purpose I have -^ indicated." It added that the appellants had intimated that if the High Court was unable, owing to a decision in 1899 (see Mohesh Chandra Dhal v. Satrughan Dhal (( 1899) L. R. 26 Ind. Ap. 281; S. C. I. L. R. 27 Calc. 4.)), to grant their application, resort would be had to the Privy Council to express an opinion whether the High Courts have the power indicated in r. 13 pending an appeal admitted by the King in Council but not by the High Court. The petition accordingly prayed for an order that the said execution of the decree under appeal should Law Rep. 38 Ind. App. 74 ( 1910- 1911) Nityamoni Dasi V. Madhu Sudan Sen 26 be stayed until the decision of the said appeal upon terms to be stated in the order or by the High Court. Ross, for the petitioners. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD MACNAGHTEN. Their Lordships are of opinion that the -High Court has power to stay execution, notwithstanding that the appeal as in this case has been admitted by special leave of His Majesty in Council. Ross, for the petitioners. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD MACNAGHTEN. Their Lordships are of opinion that the -High Court has power to stay execution, notwithstanding that the appeal as in this case has been admitted by special leave of His Majesty in Council. Their Lordships venture to add that the learned judges of the High Court are in a much better position than the members of this Board to determine whether execution ought to be stayed, and if so upon what terms and conditions and to what extent stay of execution ought to be granted. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that execution in this case ought to be stayed upon such terms as the High Court may direct.