HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.148 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff being aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2010 in I.A.No.621 of 2010 in O.S. No. 539 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. The petitioner filed the suit in O.S. No. 539 of 2010 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- alleging that the respondent has borrowed the said sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- on 3.1.2010 and issued a cheque on the aforesaid date for repayment of the said amount. However, It is alleged that when the said cheque was presented, it was dishonoured with an endorsement “insufficiency of funds”. Hence, the suit claim was made. Pending the suit, the petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 621 of 2010 to withhold an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- out of chit No. WVSP-2-30, for which, the respondent was a subscriber for a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs. The trial Court while rejecting the claim of the petitioner has ordered for deposit of Rs.1.00 lakh by the respondent. Aggrieved by the direction to the extent of deposit of Rs.1.00 lakh, the respondent herein has filed C.R.P. No.134 of 2011 before this Court, which was allowed by me today by a separate order. In this case, it is to be noticed that the respondent denied the claim made by the petitioner on the ground that he issued the said cheque for collateral security to one D. Sanjeevaiah on 21.1.2002 and the said Sanjeevaiah, misused the same. Having perused the documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court held that there are triable issues, which are required to be decided in the main suit and the issue whether the petitioner is entitled to the suit claim or not has also to be decided in the main suit. However, while accepting the surety bond executed by the third party, it directed the respondent to deposit of a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh within thirty days. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cheque dated 3.1.2010 was issued by the respondent specifically for repayment of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and while taking into consideration the said fact, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application in I.A. No 621 of 2010. I have gone through the impugned order. On a perusal of the documentary evidence adduced by the parties, I am of the view that the issue whether the petitioner is entitled to the suit claim or not is to be decided in the main suit. In view of the fact that the condition with regard to deposit of Rs.1.00 lakh by the respondent, as ordered by the trial Court was held to be illegal by this Court and the same was set aside by me today in C.R.P. No. 134 of 2011 by way of a separate order, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY,J Date: 3rd August, 2011 pnb