JUDGMENT G.D. Dubey, J. - A Money decree has been passed against the Defendant-Appellant by the lower court. An application has been made to stay the execution of the decree. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to some of the fact of the case. It was argued that the rice mill worth Rs. more than 2 lacs have been mortgaged by the Bank and bank has sufficient means to realise the decretal amount. My attention was also drawn to State of Central Bank of India, AIR 1987 Guj 113 . It was argued that in case a Division Bench of the Gujrat High Court had held that under Order XLI, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure the execution of the money decree can be stayed if it is in the public interest. The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank has urged that this godown in which the rice was situated within the mill area of the appellants. The goods kept in the godown were, said to have been, stolen. It was urged that according to sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure the appellants have to deposit the whole amount or furnish a security. It was urged that if money of the Bank remains blocked then, it would not be possible to function the Bank at all. 2. I agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that in the case of State of Gujarat v. Central Bankoj India, (supra) the attention oi the Division Bench was not drawn to the provision of sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XLI of the Code. The Learned Counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to Union Bank of India and another v. Jagannath Radhey Shyam and Co. and another, AIR 1979 Del 36 . 3. Sub-rule (3) of Rule I of Order XLI of Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: "Where the appeal is against a decree or payment of money, 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 Court may think fit." 4. I have gone through the judgment of State of Gujarat v. Central Bank India (supra). I have gone through the judgment of State of Gujarat v. Central Bank India (supra). In this case both the parties has placed reliance on Order XLI, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The provision of sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 quoted above has not been considered. In the case of AIR 1979 Del 36 the Division Bench of Delhi High Court has considered the effect of sub-rule (3) quoted above. The said rule makes no exception in the case of money degree. It leaves only two coarse open of the appellate court when the appellant approaches it for executing the decree : firstly, it may direct the appellant to deposit the whole amount or may direct to furnish security for the satisfaction of the decree which may ultimately be passed against him Sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure prohibits the staying of the execution of the decree when the appellant fails to make a deposit or furnish security specified in sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure. This sub-rule (5) reads as under : "Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-rules, where the appellant fails to make the deposit or furnish the security specified in sub-rule (3) of Rule 1, the Court Shall not make an order staying the execution of the decree." 5. Thus a reading of sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 and sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure together, it appears that the execution of money decree cannot be stayed. The appellant has either to deposit the decretal amount or furnish security. 6. The judgment of the lower court shows that the original suit was for realisation of e sum of Rs. 2.60,333,54 along with interest. The decretal amount includes included some includes and keeping in view the merits of the case I feel that it would be expedient in the interest of justice if the appellant is asked to deposit a sum of Rupees two lacs fifty thousands in the lower court and furnish a security for the remaining amount. 7. 2.60,333,54 along with interest. The decretal amount includes included some includes and keeping in view the merits of the case I feel that it would be expedient in the interest of justice if the appellant is asked to deposit a sum of Rupees two lacs fifty thousands in the lower court and furnish a security for the remaining amount. 7. Application is allowed and execution proceeding shall remain stayed provided the appellant deposit a sum Rupees two lacs fifty thousands within two months from the date of this order in the lower court and furnishes security for the remaining amount for the satisfaction of the decree which may ultimately be passed against it to the satisfaction of the lower Court within the period mentioned above. Failing compliance of any one of the above mentioned two conditions the stay order shall stand automatically vacated.