1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6874 OF 2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr. S.S.Rathi, Advocate for Petitioners. ........................... [ CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. ] DATE : 14/10/2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents. In the present case, the petitioners/original claimants challenges the Order dated 9/9/2009 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Parbhani below application dated 19/8/2009 in Fatal Accident Application No. 9 of 2008 allowing petitioner nos. 1 to 3 to withdraw the amount deposited by respondent no. 2 by furnishing surety to the satisfaction of the Court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners states that they filed 2 application dated 19/8/2009 for withdrawal of the amount deposited by respondent no. 2 in Fatal Accident Case no. 9 of 2008 as per Judgment dated 6/4/2009 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.) and Ex-officio Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Parbhani. On said application, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 & 2 gave no objection. Not only that, neither Respondent nos. 1 & 2 preferred any Appeal against Order dated 6/4/2009 passed by the Ex-officio Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Parbhani nor opposed petitioner’s application for withdrawal. Therefore, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is no question of imposing any condition at least on petitioner nos. 1 to 3 to withdraw the amount deposited by Respondent no. 2. It is correct that the trial court at the time of passing order dated 9/9/2009 on petitioner's application dated 19/8/2009, has not given any reason why the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 required to furnish the surety for withdrawing the amount deposited by respondent no. 2. The petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are minors and in their interest, the trial Court has already passed order 3 directing the office to deposit the amount to the extent of their share in any Nationalized Bank in Fixed Deposit in the name of minors. As neither respondent nos. 1 and 2 has preferred any Appeal against the order dated 6/4/2009 passed by the Civil Judged (S.D.), Parbhani and the Ex-officio Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Parbhani in Fatal Accident Case No. 9 of 2008, I do not find any reason why the trial Court imposed the condition on petitioner nos. 1 to 3 for furnishing surety at the time of withdrawing the amount deposited by Respondent no. 2. Therefore, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. Petitioner nos. 1 to 3 are allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by respondent no. 2 in trial Court of their share without furnishing any surety. The remaining amount, which comes to the share of petitioner nos. 4 and 5 be deposited in any Nationalized Bank in Fixed Deposit as per the Order passed by the trial Court dated 9/9/2009. Writ Petition disposed of accordingly. [ K.K.TATED ] JUDGE knp/WP6874.09