rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4127 OF 2005 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4127 OF 2005 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4127 OF 2005 IN IN IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1558 OF 2003 SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1558 OF 2003 SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1558 OF 2003 Vijay Bhatia ..Plaintiff V/s. Indus Video P.Ltd. ..Defendants Mr.P.V.Dhopatkar for the Plaintiff. Mrs.D.S.Sanghvi for the Defendant. CORAM: S.J. VAZIFDAR J. CORAM: S.J. VAZIFDAR J. CORAM: S.J. VAZIFDAR J. DATE : 21ST FEBRUARY,2008. DATE : 21ST FEBRUARY,2008. DATE : 21ST FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : . By an order dated 30th August, 2005 the Defendant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The Defendant has complied with the order of deposit. 2. By this Notice of Motion the Plaintiff seeks liberty to withdraw the said amount. I am not inclined to permit the Plaintiff to do so despite the fact that prima facie observations in favour of the Plaintiff have been passed in the said order dated 30th August, 2005. The issues must await the trial. : 2 : 3. Moreover, by the said order the learned Judge had directed the office to invest the amount in fixed deposit of any Nationalised Bank initially for a period of three years and to renew the same from time to time until further orders of investment. Merely on the basis of the precipe of the Plaintiff the office has failed to comply with this order of investment. If the Plaintiff did not want the amount to be invested, he ought to have applied to the Court for stay of the order and not sought to prevent the office from complying with the same. As a consequence of the Plaintiff’s precipe, the amount has remained un-invested for almost two and half years. The loss is entirely on account of the Plaintiffs application to the office. It is made clear that the Plaintiff will be solely responsible for the loss of interest for the entire period from the date of the deposit of the amount till the date it is invested irrespective of whether the Plaintiff succeeds in the suit or not. In other words, even if the Plaintiff’s suit is dismissed the Plaintiff will be liable to reimburse the loss on account of the amount remaining un-invested from the date of its deposit till the date of its re-investment. : 3 : 4. The office is now directed to invest the amount as per the order dated 30th August, 2005 within one week from today and report compliance to this Court. 5. Notice of motion is dismissed. *******