Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vemulamanda Rama Krishna Raju vs Darla Srinivas on 27 August, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE: Appeal Suit No. 1192 of 2018
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
No NOTE
08. 27.08.2024 NJS, J & JS, J
I.A No.1 of 2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also
the learned counsel for the respondent/appellant.
The present I.A is filed seeking permission to
withdraw the amount deposited into the Court pursuant
to the order dated 20.07.2018.
Vide the said order, interim stay of execution of
decree dated 15.06.2018 was granted on the condition
of the appellant depositing 1/3rd of the decretal amount
and the entire costs of the suit within a period of eight
weeks. There is no dispute that the said order has been
complied with. Be that as it may.
The learned counsel for the petitioner while
explaining the delay in filing the application as set-out in
para No.2 of the affidavit submits that the
petitioner/plaintiff is deprived of enjoying the fruits of
the decree due to pendency of the appeal. He submits
that the present appeal is filed only to protract the
litigation and unless the permission as sought for is
granted, the petitioner would suffer great hardship.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the Cont...2
respondent/appellant while opposing the said
application made submissions inter alia to the effect
that the suit claim is based on forged promissory note
and the learned Trial Court without appreciating the
matter in a proper perspective and ignoring the opinion
of the expert, had compared the signatures on the suit
pro-note under Section 73 of Evidence Act., came to an
erroneous conclusion and decreed the suit. He submits
that in such circumstances, the withdrawal of the
amount as sought for cannot be permitted. He also
placed reliance on the decisions reported in AIR 1935
BOMBAY 200 (Keshavlal Manilal and Ors., Vs.
Chandulal Balabhai and Ors.,) wherein a Hon'ble
Division Bench of Bombay High Court is dealing with a
case where the amounts deposited into the Court were
not withdrawn by the decree holder and on the
application of the Judgment Debtor, the same was
invested in Government promissory notes and AIR
1960 ANDHRA PRADESH 349 (Kothamasu Venkata
Subbayya VS. Udatha Pitchayya) of the learned Single
Judge, wherein, it is inter alia held that mere availability
of certain sum for satisfaction of a decree cannot be
equated with the actual satisfaction of a decree and the
same are of not much aid to the appellant. In the
decision reported in AIR 1968 SUPREME COURT
1047 (P.S.L Ramanathan Chettiar & Ors., Vs.
O.R.M.P.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar), the fact situation is
not similar to the case on hand. Cont...3
Insofar as the contention that the learned Trial
Court had not considered the plea with regard to forged
document, the same has to be adjudicated at the time
of final hearing of the appeal. Therefore, the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the
respondent/appellant are rejected.
In the result, the I.A is allowed. The
petitioner/plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the amount
deposited, without furnishing any security.
List the appeal on 21.10.2024 under interlocutory
caption.
_____
NJS, J
____
JS, J
GVK
