Mohamed v. Seneviratne – sllr 1989 volume 2 page 389

In Mohamed v. Seneviratne, the court addressed whether execution of a decree for ejectment should be stayed pending appeal when the tenant claimed potential “substantial loss.” It was held that the grant of a stay lies within the discretion of the trial court under Section 23 of the Judicature Act and Section 763(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, provided substantial loss is demonstrated. The principle reaffirmed that an appeal does not operate as an automatic stay of execution; instead, the likelihood of significant detriment to the appealing tenant requires judicial consideration. The decision, grounded in statutory interpretation and evaluation of the evidence relating to hardship, emphasized that prior orders failing to assess substantial loss were subject to being set aside. The court,