NAZEEMA BARVEEN Vs. A ZUBEIDHA BEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the order dated 03.07.2008, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, in I.A.NO.170 of 2008 in O.S.No.95 of 2002, this civil revision petition is focussed.

(2.) HEARD both sides. 3. Avoiding discursive discussion, I would like to precisely and briefly, succinctly and pithily set out the facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of money based on pronote. However, she filed I.A.No.8 of 2001 and obtained attachment before judgment. Subsequent to such attachment, the defendant sold the property attached, whereupon I.A.No.1115 of 2003 was filed for contempt before the lower Court. The lower Court dismissed it, as against which civil revision petition was filed before this Court, which was allowed and the said I.A. was remitted back to the lower Court for dealing with that as per law. During the pendency of such I.A. , another I.A.No.170 of 2008 was filed by the defendant coming forward to deposit the suit amount of Rs.1,04,038/- with some additional amount, totally to a tune of Rs.1,15,000/- However, the lower Court dismissed in limine the petition. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this civil revision petition is filed on various grounds.4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the defendants have got the right to deposit the suit amount with certain additional amount presumably towards cost etc. without prejudice.5. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that in order to wriggle out of the liability under I.A.No.1115 of 2003, the petitioners filed that I.A.No.170 of 2008 and the lower Court correctly dismissed it in limine.6. When all said and done, considering the pro et contra in this factual matrix, I would like to highlight and spotlight the fact that the defendants in a suit and that in a money suit are having the right to deposit the dues without prejudice and the trial Court was not justified in preventing them from doing so. What would be the consequences of such deposit, is entirely different. The fact whether such deposit would placate or mollify the seriousness of the alleged contempt committed by the defendants, is also entirely a different issue and as such, de hors deciding the said application I.A.No.1115 of 2003 purely on merits, untrammelled and uninfluenced by the order in I.A.No.170 of 2008, the lower Court should receive the deposit. With these observations and findings, the order of the lower Court in I.A.No.170 of 2008 is set aside and the said I.A. is allowed permitting the petitioners to deposit the said amount without prejudice to their contention.Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.