SUBRAMANIAN Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners preferred applications before the Court below, under Rules 163 and 165 of the Civil Rules of Practice, seeking permission to withdraw their respective shares of amount lying in Court deposit to the credit of L.A.O.P.No.2 of 1996, on the footing that they are entitled to receive the same in accordance with the Judgment and Decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.2 of 1996 and as modified by the High Court in A.S.No.466 of 1999.

(2.) The above applications preferred by the revision petitioners were resisted by the respondent contending that the respondent, in accordance with the Judgment and Decree passed by the Lower Court, had deposited the compensation amount and accordingly, it is also stated that the revision petitioners had also been permitted to withdraw the compensation amount as per the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court in L.A.O.P.No.2 of 1996. However, it is stated that as the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court had been subsequently modified by the High Court in A.S.No.466 of 1999, it is stated that the excess amount lying in the Court deposit is entitled to be withdrawn only by the respondent and further it is stated that the revision petitioners have withdrawn the excess amount from the amount deposited by the respondent and as such the revision petitioners are liable to remit back the sum of Rs.2,35,999/- and according to the respondent, the applications had been preferred by the revision petitioners as a ploy to avoid the refund of the said sum drawn by them in excess and also to prevent the respondent from getting back the amount from the Court deposit to which the respondent is entitled to and hence, the applications preferred by the revision petitioners are liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The impugned common order of the Court below is perused.