Govada Narasimha Vara Prasad vs Ramisetti Murali Mohan
2021 Latest Caselaw 4665 AP

       HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE No.: A.S.No.153 of 2021

                            PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.
                                          ORDER

No      DATE
                                                                            Transferr
5.    16.11.2021   CPK, J & RNT, J                                          -ed to I/O
                                                                            folder
                                                                            before
                                    I.A.No.2 of 2021                        correction
                                                                                 AMD
                           Status   quo    order   granted   earlier   is

extended until further orders.

I.A.No.3 of 2021

The present application came to be filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 seeking withdrawal of the amount of Rs.50,96,920/- , which was deposited by him before the trial Court i.e., XI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Gudivada pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.96 of 2010, dated 23.12.2019.

Relying upon the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad reported in Veeramareddy Nagabhushana Rao v. Jyothula Venkateswara Rao [2011 (2) ALD 629 (DB)], learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there is an order of status quo granted by this Court in the appeal filed by defendant No.1, the petitioner/plaintiff may be permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by him.

In para No.34 of the said judgment, the Court observed as under:-

"It appears pursuant to the decree the plaintiff deposited an amount of Rs.44,01,375/- to the credit of the suit but in view of the interim orders passed by this Court in this appeal, the plaintiff by way of filing a petition ASMP No.54 of 2005 sought to withdraw the amounts with the permission of the Court and this Court allowed the petition on 24.1.2004 and the plaintiff withdrew the amounts, without prejudice to the contentions in this appeal."

Having regard to the observations made in the said judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the amount without prejudice to the contentions to be raised in this appeal.

The same is not seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.

A perusal of the material on record would show that the suit was decreed on 23.12.2019 directing the defendants to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff basing on the agreement of sale deed, dated 30.7.2007, within three months failing which, the plaintiff was given liberty to execute the sale deed through process of law.

Pursuant to the judgment and decree, the petitioner/plaintiff is said to have deposited an amount of Rs.50,96,920/- to the credit of O.S.No.96 of 2010 pending before the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Gudivada. Challenging the same, defendant No.1 filed A.S.No.153 of 2020 before this Court.

By an order, dated 27.4.2021, this Court granted status quo in respect of the property in dispute for a period of eight weeks.

Having regard to the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner did not seek extension of interim order in I.A.No.2 of 2021, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by him before the trial Court in accordance with law without any prejudice to his rights in this appeal.

___________ CPK, J

___________ RNT, J AMD