ORDER : I.A. No. 8661 of 2016 filed under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., I.A. No. 5028 of 2017 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. in F.A. No. 24 of 2016, I.A. No. 9198 of 2016 filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. and I.A. No. 4997 of 2017 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. in F.A. No. 25 of 2016 were placed before this court for passing orders. 2. I have already heard both the parties on the above stated interlocutory applications. 3. It would appear from perusal of the records that plaintiff-respondent of both the aforesaid first appeals filed two separate money suits i.e. Money Suit No. 08 of 1999 and Money Suit No. 04 of 2003 against the defendants-appellants before the court below for a money decree of Rs. 22,87,194/- and Rs. 26,00,196/- respectively along with interest at the rate of 18 % per annum. The learned court below decreed both the above stated money suits directing the defendants-appellants to make payment of the above stated amount along with 18 % interest till the date of payment. 4. The defendants-appellants challenged the impugned judgments passed in Money Suit No. 08 of 1999 and Money Suit No. 04 of 2003 by filing present two separate appeals. 5. The defendants-appellants filed above stated interlocutory applications for stay of further proceeding of impugned judgment and decree as well as execution cases i.e. Execution Case No. 02 of 2016 and Execution Case No. 03 of 2016 which were subsequently filed for execution of impugned judgments and decree. 6. This court took I.A. No. 8661 of 2016 as well as I.A. No. 9198 of 2016 for hearing and in course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the defendants-appellants agreed to deposit the decretal amount before the court below and accordingly, this court vide order dated 07.08.2017 gave liberty to the defendants appellants to deposit the decretal amount before the execution court and also directed the execution court not to proceed with execution case till further order of this court. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 07.08.2017, the defendants-appellants deposited two separate bankers cheques amounting to Rs. 22,87,194/- as well as Rs. 26,00,196/- in the name of plaintiff-respondent in the above stated execution cases. 7. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 07.08.2017, the defendants-appellants deposited two separate bankers cheques amounting to Rs. 22,87,194/- as well as Rs. 26,00,196/- in the name of plaintiff-respondent in the above stated execution cases. 7. The plaintiff-respondent filed rejoinder to the interlocutory applications of the defendants-appellants raising objection that the defendants-appellants have not deposited the entire decretal amount and, therefore, this court should direct the defendants-appellants to deposit entire decretal amount and the same should be paid to the plaintiff-respondent. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants appellants submits that no doubt, by the impugned judgment and decree the court below directed to make payment of disputed amount with 18% interest per annum to the plaintiff-respondent but as a matter of fact, the defendants-appellants have challenged the impugned judgment and decree passed in both the money suits and it is well known principle of law that the appeal is continuation of the suit. He further submitted that plaintiff Patna respondent filed Execution Case No. 02 of 2016 and Execution Case No. 03 of 2016 and in the aforesaid execution cases, the execution court has ordered for attachment of government lands as well as residential office of District Magistrate and, therefore, in the aforesaid exceptional circumstance, the defendants-appellants have prayed for stay of further proceeding of Execution Case No. 02 of 2016 and Execution Case No. 03 of 2016. He submitted that the defendants-appellants have filed petition for stay under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. and Order 41 Rule 1(3) of the C.P.C. says that “If the appeal is against a decree for payment of money, the appellant is required to deposit only amount disputed in appeal or furnish such security in receipt thereof as the Court may think fit”. He, further submitted that in the present case, admittedly, the appellants have deposited the disputed amount before the court below in security as directed by this court and, therefore, the appellants cannot be compelled to deposit the amount of interest imposed upon them by the impugned judgment and decree because the impugned judgment and decree is still sub judice. He, further submitted that in the present case, admittedly, the appellants have deposited the disputed amount before the court below in security as directed by this court and, therefore, the appellants cannot be compelled to deposit the amount of interest imposed upon them by the impugned judgment and decree because the impugned judgment and decree is still sub judice. He cited a decision reported in AIR 1989 Orissa 47 wherein it has been held that “A deposit made in the execution court in pursuance of a direction issued under Order 41, Rule 5 of the C.P.C, is never in discharge of the decree as contemplated under Order 21, Rule 1 and the amount is deposited only by way of security over which the decree holder is not given any control.” He also relied upon a decision reported in A.I.R. 1996 Orissa 84 wherein it has been held by Hon’ble Orissa High Court that “Court can either direct to deposit cash security or property security before stay of execution case but the amount deposited as security under Rule 5 of Order 41 does not ipso facto without an order of Court, become the property of the decree-holder.” He further submitted that in the present case, there is exceptional circumstance for stay of execution cases as the government lands as well as residential office of District Magistrate are going to be attached and, therefore, this court should pass an order of stay of further proceeding of Execution Case No. 02 of 2016 and Execution Case No. 03 of 2016. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent refuted the above stated submissions arguing that this court directed the defendants-appellants to deposit the decretal amount and the court below has decreed the amount claimed with 18 % interest per annum but the defendants appellants have deposited only the amount claimed and neither has calculated the interest amount nor deposited the same and, therefore, unless the entire decretal amount is deposited, this court should not stay the further proceeding of Execution Case No. 02 of 2016 and Execution Case No. 03 of 2016. He further submitted that the word “amount disputed” means the entire amount in respect of which decree has been passed and, therefore, in the present case, the amount disputed shall be treated as principal amount as well as interest imposed. 10. He further submitted that the word “amount disputed” means the entire amount in respect of which decree has been passed and, therefore, in the present case, the amount disputed shall be treated as principal amount as well as interest imposed. 10. He further submitted that the plaintiff-respondent did the work as per agreement entered into by the parties but his payment was not made and, thereafter he filed money suits against the defendants-appellants in the year 1999 and 2003 respectively and since then he is fighting for his legal dues and, therefore, in the aforesaid circumstance, the decretal amount deposited by the defendants-appellants should be handed over to the plaintiff respondent and for which he is ready to execute security bond. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff respondent relied upon the decision of Malwa Strips Private Limited vs. Jyoti Limited reported in (2009) 2 SCC 426 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “Money decree cannot be stayed arbitrarily without cogent and adequate reasons and it can be stayed only if an exceptional strong case is made out from the facts and circumstances.” Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that the defendants-appellants failed to make out any exceptional case for grant of stay of execution cases and moreover, having relied upon the aforesaid decisions he submitted that in the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed to hand over principal amount to the plaintiff without any security and the amount of interest was also directed to be handed over to the plaintiff after taking security bond and on the basis of aforesaid decision, he submitted that in the present case also, decretal amount should be released in favour of the plaintiff respondent. He also relied upon some other decisions such as A.I.R. 1956 Patna 325 and AIR 1999 SC 1036 . 12. Having heard the above stated contentions of both the parties, I went through the records. It is an admitted position that this court vide order dated 31.07.2017 gave liberty to the defendants-appellants to deposit the decretal amount before passing final order upon above stated interlocutory applications and in compliance of aforesaid order/ observation, the defendants appellants deposited the principal decretal amount though the amount of interest was neither calculated nor deposited by the defendants-appellants before the execution court. 13. 13. It is an admitted position that the defendants appellants have prayed for stay of further proceeding of execution cases as well as impugned judgments and decrees under order 41 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. as well as Order 39 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. respectively and, therefore, it is obvious that the defendants appellants have deposited the amount before the execution court under Order 41 Rule 5(3) of the C.P.C. and not under Order 21 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. There is vast distinction between Order 41 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. and Order 21 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. The Order 21 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. prescribes the mode of execution of decree whereas Order 41 Rule 5(3) of the C.P.C. prescribes the procedure and rider for stay of execution case during pendency of the appeal. Therefore, in my view, the provision of Order 21 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. is not applicable in the present matter. 14. It is also an admitted position that it is the discretionary power of the court to pass order of stay of execution proceeding though that discretion should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. Therefore, it is not a hard and fast rule that before grant of stay in respect of proceeding of execution case in money decree, the court should direct the appellant to deposit entire decretal amount and the court may direct to deposit entire or part amount of decretal amount. Therefore, even if the appellants defendants have deposited only principal amount of the impugned judgments and decrees, it cannot be said that the defendants appellants have not deposited the decretal amount before the execution court. Moreover, it is obvious that the amount of interest is uncertain because it increases and changes on each and every day and, therefore, in my view, the deposit of principal amount by the appellant is sufficient compliance of observation/direction of this court. 15. So far as handing over of the aforesaid disputed amount to the plaintiff-respondent is concerned, in my view, the aforesaid amount has been deposited under Order 41 Rule 5(3) of the C.P.C. and, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent cannot claim over the aforesaid amount as a matter of right. 15. So far as handing over of the aforesaid disputed amount to the plaintiff-respondent is concerned, in my view, the aforesaid amount has been deposited under Order 41 Rule 5(3) of the C.P.C. and, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent cannot claim over the aforesaid amount as a matter of right. No doubt, in the decision of Malwa Strips Private Limited vs. Jyoti Limited (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court of this country had directed to hand over principal amount to the plaintiff of the aforesaid case without any security and the amount of interest with security but in my view, the aforesaid decision is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case because in the aforesaid case, the principal amount was admitted between the parties and dispute was only with regard to amount of interest but in the present case, the principal amount is itself in dispute and, therefore, this court do not think it proper to direct to release the amount disputed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, at least, at this stage. 16. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid discussions, the above stated interlocutory applications along with supplementary affidavits and counter affidavits stand disposed of directing that Execution Case No. 02 of 2016 and Execution Case No. 03 of 2016 pending in the court of learned Subordinate Judge-1, Hajipur shall remain stayed till disposal of both the above stated appeals. However, it is made clear that after expiry of period of bankers cheques deposited by the appellants-defendants, the appellants defendants shall deposit fresh bankers cheques of previous amount, failing which stay granted in respect of above stated execution cases shall stand vacated automatically. 17. It would appear that the appellants have not removed the defects of F.A. No. 25 of 2016 and, therefore, the appellants are directed to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, in F.A. No. 25 of 2016 within four weeks after X-mas vacation, failing which F.A. No. 25 of 2016 shall be deemed to be dismissed for non-prosecution or peremptory order of this court. 18. Since delay in filing both appeals has already been condoned, both the appeals be listed under the heading “For Admission” after removal of the defects in F.A. No. 25 of 2016. Moreover, in the meantime, the office should call for the lower court records from the concerned court.