JUDGMENT : 1. This order shall dispose of both the applications aforesaid, one filed by the respondent-decree holder, namely M/s Banke Behari Gandotra for release of the balance decretal amount along with interest stated to have been deposited in the Registry of this Court during the pendency of CFA No. 03/2016 and one moved by the appellant-judgment debtor i.e Hindustan Petroleum Corporation limited seeking stay with regard to the release of decretal amount aforesaid till the time Special Leave Petition is filed by it i.e three months. 2. It may be noted that the appellant-Judgment Debtor challenged the Judgment and Decree dated 29.12.2015 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). The trial Court had passed a judgment and decree in favour of the respondent-decree holder and against the appellant-judgment debtor for recovery of Rs.52,18,756.00 along with interest @ 9% per annum. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was assailed before this Court by way of CFA No.03/2016 on numerous grounds. This Court vide its judgment dated 21.07.2018 dismissed the Civil First Appeal filed by the appellant-judgment debtor. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant-judgment debtor had deposited whole of the decretal amount in the Registry of this Court. It is also stated that a sum of Rs.25.00 lacs was subsequently released in favour of respondent-decree holder subject to furnishing of surety of the said amount. 3. There is no dispute that the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been upheld by this Court vide its judgment dated 21.07.2018 and there is no further appeal as a matter of right provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. The only remedy with the appellant-judgment debtor, if it is aggrieved, is to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition. It is only after the leave is granted, an appeal of the appellant-judgment debtor shall be entertained and considered. Nineteen days’ time is the limitation for approaching the Supreme Court for filing appeal/SLP as the case may be. 4. It is only after the leave is granted, an appeal of the appellant-judgment debtor shall be entertained and considered. Nineteen days’ time is the limitation for approaching the Supreme Court for filing appeal/SLP as the case may be. 4. The contention of learned senior counsel appearing for respondent decree holder that in view of dismissal of appeal of the appellant-judgment debtor and with the judgment and decree of the trial Court having become final, he is entitled to the release of the balance decretal amount along with interest which has been deposited in the Registry of this Court. It is urged that the appeal against the judgment of this Court before the Supreme Court is not as a matter of right and it is only if the Supreme Court grants leave, the same can be filed and entertained. That being the position, contends learned senior counsel, the respondent-decree holder cannot be deprived of the fruit of his hard-won litigation. 5. The application filed by the respondent-decree holder is opposed by the appellant-judgment debtor on the ground that the appellant-judgment debtor is contemplating to file SLP before the Supreme Court and the statute gives it ninety days’ time to do so, as such, during the aforesaid period, the balance decretal amount which has been deposited in the Registry of this Court cannot be released in favour of the respondent-decree holder. He has also filed a separate application seeking stay of the release of the balance decretal amount deposited in the Registry of this Court. As a matter of fact, the application by one, is essentially the objections to the application of the other. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is true the with the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the appellant-judgment debtor, this Court has become functus officio. It is also a fact that immediately on the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant-judgment debtor did not make any prayer for stay of the judgment passed by this Court so as to enable it to pursue the further remedy of appeal by way of SLP before the Supreme Court. It is only when an application was moved by the respondent decree holder for release of the balance decretal amount, the appellant judgment debtor woke up from its slumber and filed the application for stay of release of the said amount. It is only when an application was moved by the respondent decree holder for release of the balance decretal amount, the appellant judgment debtor woke up from its slumber and filed the application for stay of release of the said amount. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the appellant-judgment debtor has a right to approach the Supreme Court by way of SLP against the judgment passed by this Court in CFA No.03/2016. The Supreme Court may or may not grant the leave is a different matter. The statute also provides ninety days’ time to make such application for seeking leave of the Supreme Court. The Judgment which the appellant-judgment debtor intends to assail before the Supreme Court was passed only on 21.07.2018 and in case the balance decretal amount deposited in the Registry of this Court is released in favour of the respondent-decree holder, as prayed for, the appellant-judgment debtor may be put to irreparable loss and in case the appellant-judgment debtor is granted leave and ultimately the appeal is allowed by the Supreme Court, it would be difficult for the appellant judgment debtor to recover the said amount from the respondent-decree holder. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the argument of learned senior counsel for the respondent-decree holder that merely because the appellant judgment debtor intends to file SLP before the Supreme Court, the respondent-decree holder cannot be deprived of the fruits of his long drawn litigation which has ended in his favour. 8. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances and in exercise of inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and with a view to balance the equities and protect the lis, I propose to pass the following order: i. That the judgment dated 21.07.2008 passed in CFA No. 03/2016 shall not be executed for a period of four weeks from today, which this Court feels, would be sufficient time for the appellant-judgment debtor to approach Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to appeal/petition and get the appropriate interim orders there from. However, in case the appellant-judgment debtor fails to secure any interim direction from the Supreme Court in the SLP proposed to be filed within the aforesaid period of four weeks, the decretal amount along with interest deposited in the Registry of this Court during the pendency of CFA No. 03/2016 shall be released in favour of the respondent-decree holder forthwith. ii That release of balance decretal amount along with interest, however, shall be subject to furnishing of an undertaking by the respondent-decree holder that in the event the judgment passed by this Court is reversed by the Supreme Court, the amount drawn pursuant to this order shall be refunded/remitted to the Registry of this Court within three weeks of such order, if any, passed by the Supreme Court. It may be clarified that breach of the aforesaid undertaking shall be construed as a contempt of this Court and appropriate proceedings shall follow. Ordered accordingly. Both the applications stand disposed of as above.