(1.) HEARD the Advocates. Prayer (a) was not pressed by the Plaintiffs Advocate, by the Advocate for Defendant No.4 who has taken out this notice of motion. In the suit there was a decree against Defendants 1,2,3 & 4 for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- approximately, passed by Mr.Justice R.L.Agarwal. The Defendant No.4 preferred an appeal against that decree and it was admitted. Defendant No.4 took out notice of motion for staying the eviction of decree and the said was granted on the condition that defendant deposits a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- within 10 weeks. Accordingly, Defendant No.4 deposited Rs.20,00,000/- in Court on 20th July, 1988. After the motion of Defendant no.4 was made absoulte, the Plaintiffs appliled for permision to withdraw the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- and by an order dt.7th July, 1989, the Plaiftiffs were permitted to withdraw that amount of Rs.20,00,000/- on furnishing a Bank Guranattee.
(2.) ACCORDINGLY , the Plaintiffs furnished a Bank Gurantee and withdrew the amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Appeal of the Defendant No.4 was allowed by the Divisison Bench of this Court on 16 & 17th Jan., 1992 with costs. Consequently, Defendant No.4 was entitled to get back Rs.20,00,000/- from the Plaintiffs. (It may be state here that the Appeal preferred by the Plaintiffs to the supreme Court against the order of the Division Bench of this Court, was dismissed at the stage of admission).
(3.) THE motion was opposed by the Counsel for the Plaintiffs on two grounds, namely when the Division Bench of the High Court, allowed the appeal of the Plaintiffs of 16/17th Jan., 1992, the Division Bench did not pass any order directing the Plaintiffs to pay interest on the amount retained by them. Consequently, it was argued that the Division Bench had directed the Plaintiffs to pay the costs of the proceedings throughout and hence, now no order for costs can be passed and it was argued that the case of the Plaintiffs did not come U/s. 144 of the C.P.C. for restitution.