As per case facts, the plaintiffs obtained an ex parte money decree for damages against the defendant, who was subsequently granted an unconditional stay of the decree's execution by the ... High Court's Division Bench without requiring a deposit or security. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the Appellate Court committed an error in granting an unconditional stay of the money decree's execution without insisting on a deposit of the decretal amount or security. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while usually conditional stay is granted for money decrees, an unconditional stay is permissible in "exceptional cases." Given the shocking facts of the original suit proceeding ex parte without proper summons, and a massive and unsubstantiated enhancement of damages without amending the plaint, the High Court was justified in finding sufficient cause—an egregiously perverse and facially untenable decree—to grant an unconditional stay under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC.