ORDER 1. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. 2. LEAVE GRANTED. 3. IT APPEARS THAT MONEY DECREES WERE PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN THREE DIFFERENT SUITS AGAINST WHICH FIRST APPEALS NOS. 1399, 1400 AND 1401 OF 2003 WERE FILED. IN THESE APPEALS, ON 25-11-2003, THE HIGH COURT DIRECTED THAT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF EXECUTION CASES SHALL REMAIN STAYED UPON THE JUDGMENT-DEBTORS FURNISHING SECURITY FOR THE DECRETAL AMOUNT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE EXECUTING COURT. PURSUANT TO THE SAID ORDER, SECURITY WAS A FURNISHED BY THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR BUT THE SAME WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE EXECUTING COURT, AS SUCH BY ORDER DATED 23-3-2004, THE HIGH COURT VACATED THE SAID STAY ORDER. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, THE MATTER WAS BROUGHT TO THIS COURT BY THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR BEARING SLPS (C) NOS. 9047-49 OF 2004, BUT THE SAME WERE DISMISSED ON MERITS ON 1-10-2004 AND THE ORDER VACATING STAY WAS CONFIRMED. FROM THE AFORESAID FACTS IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE PRAYER FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS IN EXECUTION CASES WAS REJECTED FINALLY UP TO THIS COURT. IN SPITE OF THIS FACT, IT APPEARS THAT THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR WAS TRYING HIS LEVEL BEST BY FILING PETITIONS EITHER BEFORE THE EXECUTING COURT OR BEFORE THE HIGH COURT FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF DECREES BY OBTAINING INTERIM ORDERS OF STAY, AND LASTLY BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, HE SUCCEEDED IN OBTAINING FINAL ORDER FROM THE HIGH COURT STAYING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE EXECUTION CASES UPON FURNISHING SECURITY FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT AS HE HAD ALREADY DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS 25 LAKHS PURSUANT TO THE EARLIER DIRECTION OF THE HIGH COURT. 4. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SO FAR AS THE QUESTION OF STAYING EXECUTION OF DECREES IS CONCERNED, THE MATTER ATTAINED FINALITY BY VIRTUE OF REJECTION OF THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS BY THIS COURT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, NEITHER THE EXECUTING COURT NOR THE HIGH COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING AD INTERIM STAY BY DIFFERENT ORDERS AND ULTIMATELY CONFIRMING THE SAME BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER RENDERED BY THE HIGH COURT WHICH IS IN THE TEETH OF ORDER OF THIS COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE AND, ACCORDINGLY, LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE ON THIS GROUND ALONE. 5. 5. THUS, THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED, THE IMPUGNED ORDER RENDERED BY THE HIGH COURT IS SET ASIDE AND THE EXECUTING COURT IS DIRECTED TO EXECUTE THE DECREES, PASSED IN ALL THE THREE SUITS, FORTHWITH AS IF THERE IS NO ORDER OF STAY. 6. NO COSTS.