1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1360 OF 2010 Vishwanath M. Kate & Ors. .. Petitioners versus Kaluram V. Chinchwade & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.R.S.Apte, Sr. advocate i/by Mr.Vaibhav Patankar for the petitioners. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 25th February 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The challenge is to that part of the impugned order dated 30th December 2009 by which application at Exhibit 74 made by the 1st and 2nd respondents who are the original plaintiffs has been allowed and the said respondents have been permitted to deposit the alleged balance consideration of Rs.18,33,000/-. 2. While permitting the 1st and 2nd respondents to deposit the amount the trial Court has observed thus: “....This being the factual aspect reflecting from pleadings inn counter- claim, plaintiffs whose status would be that of defendants in said counter- claim, cannot be prohibited or prevented from depositing the amount of consideration referred in Exhibit 74. Whether or not these plaintiffs would be entitled for the relief of getting executed sale deed in their favour as per pleadings in counter-claim, the same would be entirely a different question, fate of which would be dependent upon outcome of the evidence to be made available on record. But at this juncture as regards the restricted aspect of depositing consideration amount the same needs to be considered in it’s as it has a direct nexus with pleadings in counter-claim.” 2 3. It is obvious that the deposit of the amount by the original plaintiffs will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Merely because amount is permitted to be deposited by the original plaintiffs, it will not create any equity or any right in favour of the plaintiffs. All that has been permitted by the impugned order is the deposit of the amount by the original plaintiffs. Such deposit will not affect the rights of the parties and it will not create any equity in favour of the plaintiffs. Merely because deposit is permitted it does not mean that Court is entitled to pass an order directing execution of Sale Deed in favour of the 1st and 2nd respondents. 5. As the impugned order does not affect the rights of the parties and does not create any equity in favour of 1st and 2nd respondents, no interference is called for. As far as clause (3) of the operative part of the order is concerned, it is obvious that after issues are framed in terms of clause (2) of the order, the defendants will be entitled to file an affidavit in lieu of evidence in support of the Counter-claim. Subject to what is observed above, Writ Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)