1 IN THE HIGH COUT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2296 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 459 OF 2010 Rashmikumar K. Abrol..... Applicant Vs. Vijay M.Nahar & ors.... Respondents Mr. R.M. Deshmukh Adv. For the applicant Mr. Tejesh Dande Adv. For the respondent no.1. Mrs. S.V. Sonawane AGP for respondent no.3. CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 16th July, 2010. P.C. : 1. This application is filed by the respondent no.1 in the appeal- original plaintiff for withdrawing the amount of Rs.3,80,385/- deposited by the appellant-original defendant no.1 in this court. The said amount was deposited by the respondent no.1 on 7-5-2010. 2. The respondent no.1 herein has preferred First Appeal no. 459/2010 challenging the judgment and decree dated 10-9-2009 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune in Special Civil Suit No.1141/97. The said suit was instituted by the applicant herein 2 for recovery of Rs.2,47,500/- being the sale price of Honda Accord car sold to the respondent no.1 herein. After considering the material on record, the learned trial Judge held that the applicant established that the respondent no.1 herein did not pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-. Consequently, the learned trial Judge ordered the respondent no.1 to pay to the applicant amount of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the suit till realization. The learned trial Judge further directed that on realization of the amount, the applicant shall deliver the Honda Accord car to the respondent no.1 along with necessary documents for transfer of the same in the name of the respondent no.1. 3. Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Tejesh Dande, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Mr. Deshmukh states that he is ready and wiling to deliver the Honda Accord car along with necessary documents for transferring the same in the name of respondent no.1. Mr. Dande, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 states that he is not ready to accept the said car as by passage of time it has become worthless. He further submits that out of Rs. 3,80,385/- deposited by him, the applicant may be permitted to withdraw one lac 3 by furnishing bank guarantee of a nationalized bank and balance amount may be invested in a fixed deposit of a nationalized bank. On the other hand Shri Deshmukh submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the amount on furnishing solvent security as he has succeeded in the trial court. Shri Dande further submits that the respondent no.1 has filed Special Civil Suit No.607/98 for recovery of Rs.4,98,620 against the applicant herein. The said suit was dismissed by the learned trial Judge by judgment and decree on 10-9-2009. He has preferred First Appeal No. 515/2000 against that decision. He has excellent case on merits and hopes to succeed in that appeal. He therefore submits that, the applicant herein should not be permitted to withdraw the amount as in case he succeeds in the appeal, the applicant will have to pay the amount after adjustment of the amount payable under decree passed in Spl.C.S. No.1141/97. 4. Considering the controversy between the parties, in my opinion, the applicant should be permitted to withdraw the amount on furnishing solvent security to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judl.-I) of this court. The Registrar (Judl.-I) will hear the respondent no.1 before accepting the solvent security. Hence C.A. no.2207/2010 is allowed by 4 permitting the applicant to withdraw the amount of Rs. 3,80,385/- subject to furnishing solvent security to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judl.-I) of this court. C.A. is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. [R.G. KETKAR, J.]