The High Court · 2025

Kokkula @ Alli Shoba, D/o Alli Rajaiah, Aged 53 years, Occ. House wife Rl/o Flat No.303, Sri Sai fnclave Opp. Manna Residency, Suchitra Road, Jeedimetal, Hyderabad. ...PETlTlON EFYPIai ntiff ... RespondenUDefendant lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the order dated 3.1 .O1 .2025 in lA No. 219 of 2O2O in OS No. 156 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional District Judge at Karimnagar and permitting the petitioner to withdraw the interest accrued on fixed deposit of Rs. 60,00,0001. deposited on 1 '1 .03.2014. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P SRIDHAR RAO Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI P GANGA RAMI REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITIO N No.22O7 of 2',A25 ORDER: ) 'This Civil Revision petition has been hled :Lssailing the order dated 31.O1.2025 in I.A.No.219 of 2O2O in O.S.No.156 of 2Ol2 on the hle of the iearned I Additional Distr.i,:t Judge at Karimnagar.

2. I have heard Mr.P.Sridhar Rao, learnccl corrrrsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.p.Ganga Rami Reddy le:rrned counsel for the respondent ald perused the materials on reco-d.

3. The revision petitioner, as plaintiff, institu ed thc suit seeking specihc performance of an agreemcnt o[ sa]e .

4. 1 . Learned counsel for the revision petitioner s u bmits that the suit was decreed in the petitioner,s favour on ,2g.1O.2O19, and the appeal preferred by the responden[/ d e,l^en<lant is presently pending before this court. He further srrtrmits that, during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner clcpc s Lted a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- (Rupees sixty lakhs only) in tt Ciuil Cou rt Deposit (CCD) Accounf towards compliance with the _erms of the agreement of saie. I *I ) 2

4.2. It is submitted that, pending disposal of the suit, the petitioner ltled I.A. No. 370 ot 2Ol7 seeking permission to withdraw the interest accrued on the deposited amount. The trial Court, by order dated la.O4.2OlA, allowed the said appiication. However, despite such permission, the petitioner couid not realize or receive the accrued interest as the respondent/defendant aggrievecl by the said order preferred C.R.P. No. 3450 of 2018, u,hich rn'as later rendered infructuous on 3l.Ol.2O2O, upon disposal of the main suit in favour of the petitioner.

4.3. Subsequentiy, aJter the decree and judgment were passed, appeal is pending before this court; the petitioner hled the petition seeking permission to r,r'ithdraw the interest accrued on the deposited amount. Howevcr the trial Court though adverted to these facts, it failed to appreciale the matter in its proper perspective and erroneously dismissed the petition.

4.4 . He contends that the respondent/ defendant is not entitled to ciaim aly interest on the deposited amount, as the same represents the contractual considcration under the agreement of sale- Nonetheless fairly submits that, u.ithout prejudice to the rights and contentions of cithcr party, the petitioner is willing to \ undertake to redcposit the intcrcst amount that may be I 3 d permittcd to bc rvithdrawn, in the event the appea f-rled by the respondent/ defendant is allowed. Thus prays for rndr-rlgence of this Court in permitting withdrawal of the accrued irltercst'

5. 1 . Conversely, learned counsel for the responcle r't/ defendant submits that, once the amount was deposited L v Lhc plaintilf towards the sale consideration under the alleenlcnt, the question of entitlement to the accrued interest rtL'st ultimately enure to the benefit of the respondent/ defendant llarticularly if the appeal succeeds. He further submits t) La t permitting withdrawal of such interest during the penden<:r lf the appeal may not be appropriate. However, he fairly r:t: nceclcs that' should this Court incline to permit such withdraual, appropriatc safeguards may be imposed, including a directior- Lo rcdeposit the same upon the conclusion of the appeal a r rl to leave the issue of entitlement open for adjudication befor': the appellate Court.

6. I have carefully perused the material placed on record and considered thc submissions advanced by both sid.lr;' 7 . It is not in dispute that the petitione:7 plaintiff had deposited an amount of Rs. 60,0O,000/- during the pendency of the suit and that the suit was decreed in his lav rur' It is also '- -'1 \ -r- ) 4 undisputed that the trial Court had earlier permitted the petitioner to withdraw the interest accrucd on the said deposit. However, in view of ttre pendency of the appeal and having regard to the equitable considerations governing such situations, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner's request can be accommodated subject to protective conditions to safeguard the rights of both parties.

8. Under Section 151 o[ the Codc <>[ Civil Procedure, 1908, this Court possesses inherent powers to pass orders necessary for the ends of justice, including condilional withdrawal of deposited sums, pending adjudication of appeal. Judicial precedents, including Jagalakshmi Coelho u. Ostuald Joseph CoelLo, (2OOll 4 SCC 181, and Union of India u. K.C. Sharma, (1998) 9 SCC 154, recognize the principle that a party may be permitted to withdraw deposited sums or accrued interest during pendency of appeal, provided that an appropriate undertaking is furnished to safeguard restitutionary rights in the event of reversal of decree.

9. Applying these settled principles, lhis Court finds the petitioner's offer to fr-rrnish an undertaking afhdavit fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed in the \ following terms: I J a. The rcvision petitioner / plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the rnterest arnount, if any' a:r:rucd on Lhe sum of Rs. 60,OO,0OO/- (Rupees sixt; lakhs only) presently lying in deposit to the credit of the suit in the I CiviL Court DePosit Account' b. Such withdrawal shall be subject to the pe'titioner filing an undertaking afhdavit before the trial Court' affirming that the withdrawn amounl shall be re- dcposi.te d or otherwise restored, depe nding on the outcome of the appeal pending before thi; Court' c. The question of entitlement to the zrc ctued interest shall remain open for determination in the appeal proceedings, and this order shall not prej udice the rights or contentions of either party in that regard '

10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stanc[s disposed ol in the above terms. There shall be no order as to c'sts Misceilaneous Petitions, pending if any, shatl stand closed' /A.SSil ,1 SD/- REKHA RANI TANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// \t SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar 2. One CC to Sri P Sridhar Rao, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri P Ganga Rami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC 4. Two CD Copies ABK/NVB HIGH COURT DATED: 1311012025 ORDER CRP.No.2207 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS t0 25 8tl 6 a 1;)I J t,)r, '\i..-,n, j't/ ...//