1. Vakalatnama and Reply on behalf of the Respondent have been filed.

2. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties.

3. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the impugned order dated 02.12.2025, it is seen that the direction issued therein requiring the Appellant to deposit the entire decretal amount, as directed by the learned District Commission, is not supported by any cogent or sufficient reasons justifying the requirement of deposit of the entire amount.

4. Such direction is, therefore, not in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7098 of 2021 and other connected Appeals, decided on 07.12.2021, wherein it had been held that no order on a stay application in an Appeal is to be passed mechanically and that even the National Commission is also required to pass a reasoned and speaking order having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The order granting stay may be made subject to deposit of the entire decretal amount or such amount as may be considered appropriate, including an amount exceeding 50% of the decretal amount. but for reasons to be recorded.

5. We consequently find the impugned order to be untenable in law and, accordingly, set aside the same.

6. The Appeal stands allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Ld. State Commission for passing a fresh order on the stay application filed by the Appellant seeking stay of the decree passed by the Ld. District Commission. In passing any direction for depositing of any amount in excess of 50 per cent of the decretal dues, the learned State Commission shall record cogent reasons to explain why deposit of such amount is required.

7. Parties to appear before the learned State Commission on 29.10.2026.