Judgment :- 1. The Petitioner/Appellant/First Defendant has filed this Miscellaneous Petition under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code praying to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 41 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, pending disposal of he Appeal. V.C.M.P. No. 6 of 2010: The Petitioner/Society/First Respondent/Plaintiff has filed this Miscellaneous Petition to vacate the order of Stay granted by this Court in C.M.P. No. 6552 of 2005 in A.S. No. 117 of 2005, dated 13.12.2005. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/First Defendant, the First Respondent/Plaintiff has filed O.S. No.91 of 2001 on the file of Sub-Judge, Kovilpatti for recovery of Rs.7,53,052.75 with future interest @ 18% per annum and later the said Suit has been transferred to the file of learned Principal District Judge’s Court, Tuticorin and renumbered as O.S. No. 41 of 2004 and that the Trial Court by Judgment on 25.10.2004 has passed a decree directing the Petitioner /Appellant/First Defendant to pay to the First Respondent/Plaintiff a sum of Rs.7,53,052.75 with interest @ 18% per annum for Rs.4,95,755.60 from the date of Plaint (3.9.2001) to the date of decree and with future interest @6% per annum from the date of decree (25.10.2004) till date of realization together with costs and as against the Second Respondent/Second Defendant dismissed the Suit without costs. 2. It is the further contention on the side of the Petitioner/Appellant/First Defendant that the Petitioner/Appellant/First Defendant has filed the present Appeal A.S. No.117 of 2009 before this Court as against the Judgment and decree of the Trail Court dated 25.10.2004 in O.S. No.41 of 2004 on the file of Trail Court and the Petitioner/Appellant/First Defendant filed C.M.P.No.6552 of 2005 before this Court under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code praying for stay for all further proceedings of the Trail court in O.S. No.41 of 204 and this Court has granted interim stay for a period of three weeks and ordered notice on 17.11.2005 and thereafter, the interim order has been extended by this Court form time to time and since an Appeal filed by the Petitioner/Appellant/First Defendant is a continuation of original Trial Court proceedings and since an Appeal is pending as on date and moreover, the interim stay is in favour of the Petitioner/Appellant/First Defendant and hence, the interim stay may be continued till the disposal of the main Appeal in the interest of justice. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/First Defendant, the Suit filed by the First Defendant/Plaintiff/Society before the trail Court is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is the case of the Petitioner/Appellant/First Defendant that if at all the First Defendant/Plaintiff has got any claim, it should proceed only against the Second Respondent/Second Defendant, inasmuch as there is no privity of contract between the Petitioner and the First Respondent/Plaintiff and moreover, the First Respondent/Plaintiff is not the owner of the goods supplied to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the First Respondent/Plaintiff/Petitioner in V.C.M.P. No.6 of 2010 that the First Respondent/Plaintiff (Petitioner in M.P. No.6 of 2010) as a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and that the amount claimed in the Suit belongs to the society and the money belong to the members of the society and the First Respondent/ Plaintiff has got a valid decree from the competent Court against the Petitioner/Appellant/First Defendant and to evade payment for decree amount the First Respondent/Plaintiff has projected C.M.P No.6552 of 2005. 5. Advancing his arguments, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the First Respondent/Plaintiff that as per Order 41, Rule (3) of Civil Procedure Code when an Appeal is filed by an aggrieved party as an Appellant against the decree for payment of money, then the Appellate Court the power to direct the Appellant to deposit the amount disputed in the Appeal or furnished such security in respect there of as the Court may think fit and hence prays for passing an order by this Court directing the Appellant to deposit the amount disputed in the Appeal or furnished such security in respect there of as the Court may think deem fit and proper. 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant First Defendant cites the decision is State of Gujarat v. Central Bank of India, Ahmedabad and ors., AIR 1987 Guj. 113 , wherein it is observed as follows: “It cannot be said that there is an established principle of universal applicability that in all cases of money decree, the judgment-debtor should be directed to deposit the amount in Court and then only the question of stay be considered. Case-law discussed. 113 , wherein it is observed as follows: “It cannot be said that there is an established principle of universal applicability that in all cases of money decree, the judgment-debtor should be directed to deposit the amount in Court and then only the question of stay be considered. Case-law discussed. The Practice that the execution of money decree should not be stated unless the judgment-debtor deposits the decretal amount in Court and on such deposit, the successful party be permitted to withdraw the money on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Court appears to be a rule of prudence and not a principle of law of universal application. This practice based on rule of prudence should ordinarily be followed by Appellate Courts. This practice based on rule of prudence on which the aforesaid practice is based also required that when public interest so demands there should be exception to the ordinary rule. Case law discussed.” 7. At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that in State of Kerala v. T.K. Kuruvilla and ors., AIR 2004 Ker. 223 it is held that: ‘the ingredients of Order 41, Rule 1(3) are not mandatory and they are only directory’. 8. Also, this Court recalls the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in Kayamuddin Sham Suddin Khan v. State of India, 1998 (8) SCC 676 , wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that: ‘… in regard to the non-compliance with the direction given under Order 41, Rule 1(3) to deposit the amount, a Court of Law can dismiss the Application for stay of execution but cannot dismiss the Appeal itself.’ 9. Added further, this court aptly points out the decision is Sihor Nagar Palika Bureau v. Bhabhlubhai Virabhai and Company, 2005 (3) CTC 352 (SC) : 2005 (4) SCC 1 , wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has laid down as follows: “It is held that the High Court ought to have permitted furnishing of security instead of insisting on deposit in cash of the amount as directed by the High Court. It is not the case of the Respondent that in the event of the Appeal being dismissed the decretal amount may not be recovered from the Appellant. It is not the case of the Respondent that in the event of the Appeal being dismissed the decretal amount may not be recovered from the Appellant. On the other hand, the Appellant has made out a prima facie strong case for the hearing of the Appeal on its merits and further a case that public interest would be better served by the amount being retained by the Appellant during the pendency of the Appeal.” 10. As a matter of fact, the word ‘may’ confers a discretion to stay or not to stay as per decision is Santosh v. Bhai, AIR 1955 Pun. 47. 11. It is a well accepted principle in law that generally a stay of execution of money decree will not be granted unless there are special extraordinary circumstances. 12. Admittedly, an Appeal is a continuation of original Trial Court proceedings namely the main Suit and in the instant case, the Petitioner/Appellant/First Defendant has filed the Appeal No. 117 of 2005 as against the Judgment and decree passed by the Trail Court in O.S No.41 of 2004, dated 25.10.2004 and the same is pending as on date. 13. It is not in dispute that this Court has granted interim stay in C.M.P. No.6552 of 2005 in A.S. No.117 of 2005 initially for a period of three weeks on 17.11.2005 and it has been continued. During the pendency of the interim stay in C.M.P. No.6552 of 2005, the First Respondent/Plaintiff has projected Vacate Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.6 of 2010 before this Court. 14. On a careful consideration of respective contentions, this Court is of the considered view that the power of this Court as an Appellate Court to grant stay is not curtailed in any way if there is ‘sufficient or good cause’ for passing such an order. However, the discretion in regard to the money decree is circumscribed in the same manner, mentioned in Order 41, Rule 5 of Code or Civil Procedure. In a suitable case, if substantial loss may result to the Petitioner/Appellant/First Defendant, if no stay granted or vacated a Court of law may grant stay or make the stay granted as absolute either by imposing or not imposing any condition whatsoever. 15. In a suitable case, if substantial loss may result to the Petitioner/Appellant/First Defendant, if no stay granted or vacated a Court of law may grant stay or make the stay granted as absolute either by imposing or not imposing any condition whatsoever. 15. As far as the present case is concerned, the interim stay in C.M.P. No.6552 of 2005 in A.S. No.117 of 2005 granted by this Court initially for a period of three weeks on 17.11.2005 and it has been extended periodically and as on date the interim stay is in force, in favour of the Petitioner. Only on 5.8.2010 before this Court V.C.M.P. No.6 of 2010 has been filed before this Court by the Petitioner/First Respondent/Plaintiff. 16. The learned Counsel for the First Respondent/Plaintiff submits that this Court has passed orders in M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2007 in A.S. No.828 of 2006 on 26.9.2007 to the effect of herein A.S. No.828 of 2006 Pending on the file of this Court along with A.S. No.117 of 2005 pending on the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court and as such the First/Respondent/Plaintiff has not come to know about A.S. No.117 of 2005 pending on the file of Madurai of the Madras High Court being transferred to this Court and the First Respondent/Plaintiff has come to know about this said transfer only later and thereafter, it has filed V.C.M.P. No.6 of 2010 and therefore, there are no latches on the part of the First Respondent/Plaintiff/Society in projecting the Vacate Stay Petition. 17. Be that as it may, since this Court has granted interim stay in C.M.P. No. 6552 of 2005 in A.S. No.117 of 2005 dated 17.11.2005 initially for a period of three weeks and the same being continued till date and since the Petitioner/Appellant/First Defendant’s Appeal in A.S. No.117 of 2005 is admittedly pending before this Court, this Court directs the interim stay granted on 17.11.2005 in C.M.P. No.6552 of 2005 to continue till the disposal of A.S. No.117 of 2005 to promote substantial cause of justice. Consequently, V.C.M.P. No.6 of 2010 is filed by the Petitioner/Society/First Respondent/Plaintiff is dismissed.