JUDGMENT : P.K.Tripathy, J. - This Civil Revision has been listed for orders on the application for stay vide above noted Misc. Case. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court finds that there is no illegality or jurisdictional error committed by learned Additional District Judge, Bargarh, in passing a conditional stay order on 1.2.2002 in Title Appeal No, 6 of 2002. 2. It is mentioned in the revision application and also learned counsel for the petitioners states that Title Suit No. 46 of 1999 filed by the petitioners claiming right, title and interest over the disputed property was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bargarh as per the decree passed in Title Suit No. 46 of 1999 which is under appeal, as above, in the court of Additional District Judge, Bargarh. He further states that the counter claim of the defendant who is the opposite party in this revision claiming as the owner of the house and describing the petitioners as his tenant was decreed in that suit with a decree for arrear and future house rent. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a xerox copy (true copy attested) of the certified copy of the decree, the relevant portion of which reads as hereunder: "The plaintiffs are hereby directed to vacate the suit land and house standing therein within 2 (two) months from the date of this judgment failing which the defendant is at liberty to evict the plaintiffs under the provisions of law. The plaintiff No. 1 is directed to pay to the defendant the arrear house rent amounting to Rs. 14007- (rupees one thousand four hundred) (for four months from the month of January, 1999 to April, 1999) and to pay the damages @ Rs. 1,000/- (rupees one thousand) per month onwards for unlawfully occupying the suit land and house standing thereon from the month of May, 1999 till the date of eviction of plaintiffs." 3. It is seen from the impugned orderthat the prayer for interim stay was allowed with respect to execution case No. 1 of 2002 of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bargarh subject to deposit of Rs. 25,000/- in the Executing Court by the end of February, 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioners state that instead of asking for depositing of cash, learned Addl. Dist. Judge, Bargarh should have directed for furnishing of property surety. 4. 25,000/- in the Executing Court by the end of February, 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioners state that instead of asking for depositing of cash, learned Addl. Dist. Judge, Bargarh should have directed for furnishing of property surety. 4. Considering the provision of law in Sub-rule (1) read with Sub-rule (3) in Rule 5 of Order XII, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. However, it is observed, that keeping in view Clause (c) in Sub-rule (3) of above stated Rule 5, the petitioner, if so advised, may file an application for furnishing the property security instead of cash security and in such event it is left to the discretion of the lower appellate Court to consider the same and modify the order of stay with due exercise of judicial discretion. With the said observation, the revision stands dismissed and order to issue notice on admission is accordingly recalled. 5. For any reason, if the defendant opposite party who is the decree-holder in the above noted execution proceeding feels aggrieved by this order, he may approach this Court for modification and that shall be considered in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Unreasonable delay in moving such application may be a ground to reject such application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners state that requisites filed by him may be returned to him. That motion is allowed and Registry is directed to do the needful. Final Result : Dismissed