( 1 ) ISSUE notice. ( 2 ) MR Suman Jyoti Khaitan, Advocate accepts notice for the contesting respondents. ( 3 ) LEAVE granted. ( 4 ) WE heard Mr Harish Salve, learned Solicitor-General for India who argued for the appellant and Dr A. M. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondents. We do not think it necessary to go deep into the merits of the case as the only question posed before us is whether the division Bench of the High Court should have granted stay of operation of the judgment of the Single Judge which was impugned in the LPA. While declining to grant stay the Division Bench directed the respondents to give an undertaking that in case the LPA is allowed then the amount would be refunded to the appellant with such rate of interest as may be directed by the division Bench. It would have been advisable to grant stay of the operation of the judgment rendered by the Single Judge as the Division Bench had decided to admit the appeal and dispose of it on merits. Dr A. M. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel, however, contended that in case this Court is disposed to keep the judgment of the Single Judge in abeyance it may be subject to a direction that the appellant shall give an undertaking right now that the amount covered by the judgment of the Division Bench shall be paid within a particular time with interest in the event of the appellant losing the lpa. ( 5 ) WE, therefore, allow this appeal and keep the judgment of the Single judge in abeyance till the disposal of the LPA. This is on condition that in the event the appellant loses the LPA the amount covered by the judgment of the lpa shall be paid to the person entitled thereto within a period of six weeks. However, this condition will be without prejudice to the right, if any, of the affected parties in resorting to their remedies open in law to challenge the judgment in the LPA. ( 6 ) THIS appeal is disposed of accordingly.