JUDGMENT DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.- The Defendant, being the Petitioner, has filed this Writ Petition challenging the Order Dated 16.07.2010 passed by Learned Addl. District Judge, Jharsuguda in RFA NO.20 of 2009 directing the Petitioner to deposit arrear rent of Rs.3,000 & mesne profit @ RS.2,000 per month from May, 2008 to 30th June, 2010 before the lower Court as a condition for entertaining the appeal under Order 41, Rule 5(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, 'CPC'). 2. The Opp. Party, being the Plaintiff, filed a suit bearing C.S. NO.15 of 2008 before the Learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Jharsuguda for eviction from the suit house & give delivery of possession of the same through Court along with arrear rent & mesne profit. The Defendant contested the suit. However, the suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff directing the Defendant to give vacant possession of the suit house within one month from the date of order & further directed to pay arrear rent of Rs.3,000 & mesne profit @ RS.2,000 per month from May, 2008 onwards. Against the said Judgment & decree passed by the Learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Jharsuguda in C.S. NO.15 of 2008, the Defendant preferred an appeal bearing RFA NO.28 of 2009 before the Learned Addl. District Judge, Jharsuguda & also filed an application for stay of further proceeding in execution case. The Learned Appellate Court while considering such application for stay of execution, passed the impugned Order Dated 16.07.2010 directing to deposit the entire decreetal amount, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. 3. Mr. P.K. Rath, Learned Counsel appearing for the DefendantAppellant states that direction given by the Learned lower Appellate Court for deposit of the entire decreetal amount as a pre condition for grant of stay of execution of proceeding is not inconformity with the provisions of Order 41, Rule 1 (3), CPC & Order 41 Rule 5, Sub-Rule-3, CPC. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the Judgment in Hadinabdhu Senapati V. Smt. Chamamani Behera AIR 1996 Orissa, 84. 4. Mr. B. Parida, Learned Counsel for the Opp. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the Judgment in Hadinabdhu Senapati V. Smt. Chamamani Behera AIR 1996 Orissa, 84. 4. Mr. B. Parida, Learned Counsel for the Opp. Party strenuously urged that since It is a suit for eviction, the condition imposed by the Learned Appellate Court is well within his competence & is in conformity with the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 1 (3) CPC read with Order 41, Rule 5(3), CPC & no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Learned lower Appellate Court by imposing condition for deposit of entire deceetal amount for grant of stay of execution proceeding pending before the Learned Court below. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the Judgments in Hardayal v. Surja Ram AIR 1977 Punjab & Haryana 259 & in Daitary Nayak v. Srikanta Mohapatra, AIR 1992 Orissa, 39. 5. The provisions contained under Order 41, Rule 1, SubRule-3, CPC & Order 41 Rule 5, Sub-Rule-3, CPC are quoted below. Order 41, Rule-1, Sub-Rule-3:- "Where the appeal is against a decree for 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. Order 41, Rule-5, Sub-Rule-3 : "No order for stay of execution shall be made under subrule (1) or sub-rule (2) unless the Court making it is satisfied (a) that substantial loss may result to the party applying for stay of execution unless the order is made; (b) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; & (c) that security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him." 6. Order 41, Rule 1 (3), CPC states that where the appeal is against a decree for 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. The said provision relates to filing of appeal, which is not the case here reason being the appeal has already been admitted & since the execution proceeding was initiated, application was filed for stay of execution. The said provision relates to filing of appeal, which is not the case here reason being the appeal has already been admitted & since the execution proceeding was initiated, application was filed for stay of execution. Once the appeal has been admitted, the provisions contained in Order 41, Rule 1 (3), CPC will not apply. Let us now consider the question of applicability of Order 41, Rule 5(3), CPC. This power can only be exercised while granting stay of execution under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) of Order 41, Rule 5, CPC & the Court if satisfied,can direct for payment of security to be given by the applicant for due performance of such decree or order as may be ultimately binding upon him., 7. Order 41, Rule 5 relates to stay of proceeding & execution. By the Amendment Act 104 of 1976 an Explanation has been added to sub-rule(l) which provides that an order of stay 'of execution made by the Appellate Court operates only from the time it is communicated to the executing Court. After an appeal has been filed, the Appellate Court may order the stay of proceedings und the decree or execution of such decree. Obviously the rule will apply only when the decree under appeal is capable of execution. The provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 are mandatory, & therefore, conditions prescribed in Clauses (a), (b) & (c) thereof must be fulfilled before granting of stay. The power to grant stay of execution on sufficient cause being shown is controlled by sub-rule (3) & each of the three conditions specified therein must be satisfied before stay is granted. Execution should not be stayed unless the Court is satisfied that substantial loss may otherwise result to the Judgment-debtor, & the application is made without unusual delay. The amount deposited as security under Rule 5 does not ipso facto without an order of Court, become the property of the decree-holder. On perusal of sub-rule(3) of Rule 5 it is clear that no order for stay of execution shall be made under sub-rule (1) or Sub-rule(2) unless the Court is satisfied about the pre-conditions stipulated therein. One of the conditions is that the security has been given by the Appellant for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him. One of the conditions is that the security has been given by the Appellant for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him. The language of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 is emphatic & imperative mandating that no order of stay of execution shall be made unless the Court is satisfied that security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him, amongst other conditions. The provision is couched in mandatory language & if the Court finds that no security has been furnished by Hie Appellant no order of stay of execution can be made under Sub-rule(l) of Sub-rule(2), CPC. Therefore, the provisions under Order 41, Rule 5(3), CPC provides satisfaction regarding sufficient cause as a pre condition for passing the order of stay of execution of decree & sub-rule (3) of Order 41, Rule 5, CPC obligates the Court to record satisfaction of such decree. Therefore, security may be in the shape of property bond or by undertaking from the Appellant to abide by the decree seeking stay of execution. But there is no provision under Order 41, Rule 5, CPC putting a mandate to deposit cash security as the only mode of security for execution of decree. Further, Order 41, Rule 5(3), CPC contemplates deposit of security for grant of stay, of execution proceeding. But the impugned order indicates that for grant of stay ,of execution of decree in the shape of security, Learned Appellate Court directed for deposit of the entire decretal amount, which should be deposited so that stay of execution can be passed as an interim measure before considering the appeal by the Appellate Court. 8. In Hardayal (supra) order of stay was granted by Appellate Court because the appeal was filed but that ipso facto is' contrary to the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 5, CPC. Therefore, the Court held that in complete ignorance of the requirement of Order 41 Rule 5, CPC, if the order is passed 'the same suffers from patent & material illegalities in exercise of jurisdiction. 9. In Daitary Nayak (supra) this Court held that in the matter of granting stay by the Court which passed the decree or by the Appellate Court, the intention of the legislature is indicated under Order 41, Rule 5, CPC. 9. In Daitary Nayak (supra) this Court held that in the matter of granting stay by the Court which passed the decree or by the Appellate Court, the intention of the legislature is indicated under Order 41, Rule 5, CPC. Both the Judgments cited by Mr.B.Parida, learned Counsel for the Opp. Party have no application to the present context. In the present case, the learned Appellate Court had exercised, its power for grant of stay of execution in conformity with the provisions contained in Order 41, Rule 5, CPC. Therefore, it cannot be, construed that the power so exercised by the learned Appellate Court is without jurisdiction or beyond its competence or beyond its power, rather, the power so exercised by the learned Appellate Court is well in conformity with the provisions contained in Order 41; Rule 5, CPC. The same view has also been taken by this Court in Hadinabdhu Senapati (supra). In that view of the matter, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned lower Appellate Court. 10. Now the only question is that whether the Appellant can give the entire decretal amo'unt by way of security. There can be no doubt that the Court has wide discretion in the matter of fixing the nature & mode of security & as such, there is no statutory definition of 'security' in CPC, rather security is anything that makes the mercy more assured in its payment or more readily recoverable. It is an encumbrance; The purpose of security is to ensure or facilitate the fulfillment or enjoyment of some other right vested in its owner. Money paid into Court to abide the event of an action is a security to the other litigant, who, if succeeds, becomes thereby a secured creditor. In an appropriate case, the Court can certainly direct deposit of cash security, & in other cases, it may direct furnishing of property security. It all depends on nature of dispute. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances, this Court while declining to interfere with the impugned order, directs the Appellant to make deposit of fifty percent of the decreetal amount by way of cash & rest fifty percent by way of property security before the Appellate Court as a condition precedent for stay of execution proceeding within a period of one month. 12. 12. With the above direction, the impugned Order Dated 16.7.2010 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jharsuguda in RFA NO.20 of 2009 is modified to the extent indicated above. Since the appeal is of the year 2009, learned lower Appellate Court shall do well to dispose of same as expeditiously as possible preferably by the end of October, 2014. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No cost. .