THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3443 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the father of a minor child, by name K.Sai Dheeraj. An item of immovable property exists in the name of the minor. The petitioner filed H.M.G.W.O.P.No.2009 of 2009 before the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to permit him to sell that property. It was pleaded that he intends to admit the minor child in a school of very high standard and that the same needs huge expenditure. The trial Court allowed the H.M.G.W.O.P. through order, dated 01.02.2010. Permission was accorded to the petitioner to sell the schedule property, on condition that the property can be sold for a consideration of not less than Rs.12,00,000/- and the entire amount of consideration shall be paid into the Court. It was left open to the petitioner to obtain permission for withdrawal of any amount as and when it is spent for the welfare of the minor. A default clause was added in the order. The petitioner filed I.A.(SR) No.20896 of 2010 under Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to permit him to give an item of immovable property standing in his name as security instead of depositing a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- in a nationalized bank in the name of the minor. The trial Court dismissed the application on 28.06.2010. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri S.V.R.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the order passed in the H.M.G.W.O.P. and the order under revision discloses that the object of the petitioner was somehow or the other to sell the property that is standing in the name of the minor. The grounds pleaded in the O.P. stood belied on account of filing of subsequent application. The immediate object of the petitioner is to get the entire amount representing the sale consideration of the property standing in the name of the minor. Since the trial Court insisted that the amount shall be first deposited into the Court and permission for withdrawal be sought thereafter depending upon the expenditure incurred, the petitioner found it difficult to sought permission of the Court to utilize the entire consideration by offering security of another item of property. The whole exercise is dubious and the trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:06.08.2010. kdl