Mr.Nagaboina Akrishna And ... vs The Chairman Apseb. Vidyuth ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6777 Tel

    THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

                     C.R.P.No. 4812 of 2003

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order

dated 15.09.2003 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge,

Khammam, in E.A.No.402 of 2003 in E.P.No.306 of 2002 in

O.S.No.80 of 1995.

The trial Court, by docket order dated 15.09.2003, held

as under:

"In view of orders in E.A.No.370 of 2003 and decree, a

sum of Rs.50,000/- was kept in FD as plaintiff No.3

(Petitioner No.2 herein) is minor. Plaintiff No.3 was aged

7 ½ years when O.P.No.70 of 1990 was filed. So, she might

have become major by this date. The said amount can be

paid to Plaintiff No.3 if she applies for the amount. Plaintiff

No.2 (Petitioner No.1 herein) is entitled for Rs.3,59,943/-

(Rs.4,09,943/- - Rs.50,000/- = Rs.3,59,943/-). Admittedly,

defendants filed appeal. No stay order is obtained by

defendants. To safe guard the interest of both parties, it is

better to direct the petitioners to furnish 3rd party security

for Rs.3,59,943/-. For furnishing 3rd party security, call on

18.09.2003."

Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners

contended that the revision petitioners filed a cheque

petition for an amount of Rs.3,59,943/-, but the respondents

filed a petition seeking not to pay the amount to the Decree

Holders; that the trial Court, while permitting the Decree

Holders to withdraw the amounts deposited, erroneously

imposed a condition to furnish third party security and,

therefore, he requested the Court to set aside the order of

the trial Court to the extent of imposing a condition to

furnish third party security.

In view of the judgment passed in A.S.No.828 of 2003

dated 13.12.2022, this Court is of the view that it is just and

reasonable to set aside the impugned order of the trial Court

to the extent of imposing a condition to furnish third party

security for withdrawal of Rs.3,59,943/-. The revision

petitioners are also entitled to withdraw the said deposited

amount without furnishing third party security as plaintiff

No.3 was declared as major.

Accordingly, the C.R.P. is allowed. No order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand

closed.

_______________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

13.12.2022 Gsn