HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.134 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, who is defendant in the suit in O.S. No. 539 of 2010 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2010 passed in I.A. No.621 of 2010 in O.S. No. 539 of 2010. The respondent-plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- alleging that the petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 3.1.2010 for his necessities and for repayment of the same, he has issued a cheque on 3.1.2010. 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 respondent 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 petitioner was a subscriber for a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs. The aforesaid I.A. was contested by the petitioner. He has also furnished surety bond of one Mohd. Mustaq Hussian. The trial Court on a perusal of the evidence on record, has clearly recorded a finding that whether the respondent is entitled to the suit claim or not is to be decided in the main suit. While declining to grant the relief as prayed for, it however, accepted the surety of the third party, i.e., Mohd. Mustaq Hussain and directed the petitioner to deposit of an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh within 30 days from the date of the said order. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the trial Court declined to grant the relief as prayed for, there is no power or authority for the trial Court to order for deposit of an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that in as much as the petitioner has issued a cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- on 3.1.2010 and the same was dishonoured, the trial Court was justified in ordering deposit of Rs.1.00 lakh. I have perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court in the impugned order has clearly recorded a finding that there are triable issues, which are required to be decided in the suit and whether the respondent is entitled to the suit claim or not is also to be decided in the main suit. However, while accepting the surety bond executed by the third party, it directed the petitioner to deposit of a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh within thirty days. Admittedly, when the trial Court declined to grant the relief as prayed for, it ought not to have directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh. If what the petitioner claims is true, then the trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and committed a serious error in ordering for deposit of Rs.1.00 lakh. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order to the extent of ordering deposit of Rs.1.00 lakh by the petitioner is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order to the extent of ordering deposit of Rs.1.00 lakh by the petitioner is hereby set aside. No costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY,J Date: 3rd August, 2011 pnb