JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Defendant-judgment.-debtor is the Petitioner in this Civil Revision. 2. Against the decree sought to be executed, the Petitioner filed First Appeal No. 42 of 1980 which is pending in this Court. The decretal amount is roughly Rs. 25,900/. Plaintiff filed Execution Case No. 6 of 1980 for recovery of the decretal amount. In the First Appeal Defendant applied for stay of execution of the decree under Order 41, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure. Under the Rules of this Court, Registrar is to exercise the power under Order 41, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure. On 28-7-1980, the Registrar finally stayed the further proceedings of the Execution Case subject to the condition that the judgment debtor furnishes security to the extent of the decretal amount within six weeks to the satisfaction of the Executing Court. This period was extended from time to time and the last extension was till 5.3.1981 by which time the bond was to be furnished. These extensions were granted on the basis that the draft bond was filed in the Executing Court for approval after its satisfaction. On 17-9-1980, the decree-holder filed his objection to the draft security bond. Documents in support of the security bond were filed on 31.10.1980. As stated earlier, the learned Registrar of this Court extended time by 15 days on 18.2.1981 to execute the security bond to the satisfaction of the Executing Court. 3. On 5-3-1981, to which date the execution case was posted, the Executing Court passed the following order: Advocate for the J. Dr. files a petition praying to direct the Nazir to accept the amount, Heard. The prayer is allowed. He also files a memo, along with challan showing deposit of Rs. 2127-50. Another petition is also filed praying to accept the security bond offered by the J. Dr. heard. Let the J. Dr. file documents relating to his lands, by and other documents in proof of the valuation. Put up on 27-3-1981. It is clear that the Executing Court did nut examine the documents filed and wanted further documents. The Petitioner cannot be blamed for the Executing Court fixing a date beyond 5-3-1981. Presiding Officer of the Executing Court was absent on casual leave on 27-5-1981 till 2-4-1981 on which date the documents as required by the Executing Court were filed. It is clear that the Executing Court did nut examine the documents filed and wanted further documents. The Petitioner cannot be blamed for the Executing Court fixing a date beyond 5-3-1981. Presiding Officer of the Executing Court was absent on casual leave on 27-5-1981 till 2-4-1981 on which date the documents as required by the Executing Court were filed. The impugned order dated 2-4-1981 reads as follows: Advocate for the J. Dr. files a memo along with documents. Advocate for D. Hr. objects to the security offered by J. Dr. As per direction of the Hon'ble Court the J. Dr. has not furnished satisfactory security within the fixed time. Intimate Hon'ble Court and put up on 28-4-1981 awaiting further order. 4. On 22-6-1981, the Petitioner filed a petition in the First Appeal in this Court to set aside the report of the Executing Court and to direct an enquiry as to the sufficiency of the security offered. On 25-11-1981, the learned Registrar vacated the order of stay after perusal of the report of the Subordinate Judge and after hearing both the parties on account of non-compliance with the order of this Court. The petition dated 22-6-1981 does not seem to have been considered that day. Petitioner filed a petition on 26-11-1981 to put up the matter before the Bench. On 27-11-1981, the learned Registrar heard counsel for both parties on the petitions dated 26-11-1981 and 22-6-1981. He passed the following order: In view of the compliance report dated 3-4-1981 of the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, there seems to be no justification to allow the aforesaid petitions and as such, they are rejected. If the Appellant is aggrieved by the order of the Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, (Executing Court) he may challenge it in appropriate forum. 5. III view of the order of the learned Registrar, this Civil Revision was filed with a prayer for condonation of delay. The delay has already been condoned. 6. On perusal of the various orders, I am satisfied that the delay in execution of the security bond was on account of the Court requiring further documents for its satisfaction. It has granted time beyond the date fixed for production of the documents. The delay has already been condoned. 6. On perusal of the various orders, I am satisfied that the delay in execution of the security bond was on account of the Court requiring further documents for its satisfaction. It has granted time beyond the date fixed for production of the documents. After granting time to the Petitioner, the Executing Court was not justified in refusing to examine the documents called for by it only on the ground that the judgment-debtor had not furnished satisfactory security within time fixed by this Court. Judgment-debtor had filed a draft security bond for approval of the Court. He also filed document in support of the security bond. It was for the Court to examine the document and satisfy itself relating to the sufficiency of the security offered and on satisfaction to approve the draft security bond for final execution. Learned Registrar also ought to have considered this aspect of the matter and merely on the report of the Executing Court ought not to have vacated the order of stay without considering the application dated 22-6-1981, for not accepting the report of the Executing Court. There was also no justification for the learned Registrar not to accept the prayer or the Petitioner in the petition dated 26-11-1981 to place the matter before the Bench for orders leaving the Petitioner to challenge the order of the Executing Court in proper forum. 7. The learned Counsel for the opp. party, decree-holder has fairly agreed that he would have no objection if a rigid date is fixed within which time the decree-holder would secure the decretal amount. He, however, submits that the decree-holder is seriously prejudiced as the judgment-debtor is neither paying the decretal dues nor furnishing security since 1980. I appreciate the felling of the decree-holder. 8. Keeping the entire circumstance in view, in the interest of justice I grant time to the judgment-debtor till 15th of November, 1984 for executing the security bond. I direct the Executing Court to scrutinise the documents on 24.10.1984 when both the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder would appear before it, as agreed to by the learned Counsel for both the parties. In, case there is any objection to any of the documents, further seven days only would be granted to the judgment-debtor for compliance with the direction of the Executing Court,. In, case there is any objection to any of the documents, further seven days only would be granted to the judgment-debtor for compliance with the direction of the Executing Court,. In no case further opportunity shall be given thereafter in case the documents are accepted, the draft security bond is to be approved and returned to the judgment-debtor to submit the same in final form on or before 15th November, 1984. Further proceedings of the Execution Case shall he stayed. It need not be emphasised that the Plaintiff decree-holder shall be given full opportunity to scrutinise the documents for raising objections, if any. As the judgment-debtor is not free from blame and the decree-holder has appeared in this Court in Civil Revision, the Petitioner is to pay a cost of Rs. 150/- (one hundred fifty) to Mr. A.O. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the opposite party on or before 22.10.1984, failing which this Civil Revision shall stand dismissed without, further reference to the Bench. In case the judgment-debtor fails to furnish the final security bond on or before the 15th November, 1984, the execution proceeding shall be continued to its logical conclusion. 9. The Civil Revision is allowed subject to the conditions laid down above. Final Result : Allowed