Interlocutory stay conditions upheld when appellate discretion is neither arbitrary nor perverse, despite writ challenge.

An appellate authority's interlocutory condition requiring deposit of 30% of the outstanding demand for an interim stay was upheld because it was imposed after considering the merits and surrounding proceedings. The court held that writ interference is not warranted merely because another view is possible; interference lies only if the discretion is shown to be improper, arbitrary, or perverse. The challenge to the stay condition therefore failed, although additional time was granted to comply with the deposit requirement and obtain the interim stay.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority's condition requiring deposit of 30% of the outstanding demand for grant of interim stay warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The appellate authority had considered the merits and the surrounding proceedings before imposing the stay condition. The order reflected an exercise of discretion based on the material placed before it, and no ground was made out to show that the discretion was exercised improperly or arbitrarily. In writ jurisdiction, interference with such an interlocutory condition is not justified merely because a different view is possible.

Conclusion: The challenge to the stay condition was rejected and the condition was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, though further time was granted to comply with the deposit condition and secure the interim stay.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference with an appellate authority's interlocutory stay condition is unwarranted unless the discretion is shown to be improper, arbitrary, or perverse.

---