Lanco Hills Techonology Park Pvt ... vs Anatha Constructions
2022 Latest Caselaw 142 AP

          HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

                        MAIN CASE No.A.S.No.295 of 2018
                               PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                              Office
                                              ORDER

No      DATE                                                                     Note
4     07.1.2022   RRR, J
                                         I.A.No.2 of 2018

The petitioner in this application had filed O.S.No.198 of 2011 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa against the appellants in the appeal, seeking recovery of money on the ground that the appellants had not paid the consideration towards the work done by the respondent/plaintiff herein. This suit was decreed by a judgment and decree dated 20.10.2017. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents herein had filed A.S.No.295 of 2018 before this Court. The respondents had also filed I.A.No.1 of 2018 for stay of operation of the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2017. This Court by an order dated 12.04.2018 had granted interim stay of execution of the decree subject to deposit of 50% of the decretal amount and also suit costs within six weeks from 12.04.2018. This Court had also directed that in the event of such deposit, the petitioner herein would be entitled to withdraw the costs without furnishing any security and any permission for withdrawal of the 50% of the decretal amount would be subject to filing of counter and further hearing.

Thereafter, this application has now been filed by the petitioner for withdrawal of the 50% of the decretal amount.

Heard Sri Y.N.Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioner herein and Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for the respondents

herein.

Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for the respondents submits that application requires to be dismissed on the ground that any withdrawal was to be subject to filing of counter and further hearing. As the petitioner herein has filed a counter affidavit in the form of the present application and since the matter is being heard today, it must be held that both these conditions have been complied with.

Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for the respondents would rely upon the grounds of appeal to contend that the petitioner herein is not entitled to any amount and consequently could not be permitted to withdraw the said amounts.

The grounds raised in the appeal are matters which need to be gone into at the stage of final hearing of the appeal. On the other hand, the petitioner herein cannot be denied the fruits of the decree at this stage.

In the circumstances, this application is allowed permitting the petitioner to withdraw 50% of the decretal amount deposited with the trial Court subject to furnish security for 50% of the amount to be withdrawn. The said security being to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

________ RRR, J RJS