1 W.P.No.5580/09. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5580 OF 2009. Sudhakar S/o Madhukar Ghan, AGe 54 years, Occ.R/o Plot No.82 Ram Sita, Samarth Nagar, Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus Aarti D/o Madhukar Ghan alias Aarti W/o Anand Belsare, and others. ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.S.Bedre, advocate holding for Mr.S.H.Joshi, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.A.Joshi, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 08.08.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2 W.P.No.5580/09. 2. The petitioner impugns the order passed below Exh.34, directing the petitioner to furnish a Bank guarantee of an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs). 3. The present Respondents have filed suit for recovery of Rs.12,57,388/- (Rupees twelve lacs fifty seven thousand three hundred eighty eight) from the defendant i.e. the present petitioner on the ground that amount was kept in Fixed Deposit in the name of their father i.e. Madhukar and the defendant No.1 Sudhakar. In fact, the amount was of their father Madhukar. The trial Court directed the present petitioner to submit a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs) within two (2) months from the date of order. Mr.Bedre, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the said amount was belonging to the father Madhukar. The petitioner is unnecessarily taxed. Even an order of giving surety could have been passed. The amount was kept in the name of the father also as he was a senior citizen. It is not the amount of 3 W.P.No.5580/09. the father. The Court without any proof could not have passed such an order. There is also no proof that the petitioner is merely a nominee, the Court would not have resorted to Section 151 of the C.P.C. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for respective parties, I have gone through the order. The fact that the amount in the Fixed Deposit was lying in the joint name of Madhukar and the present petitioner is borne out from the Certificate. The copy of the application moved by the defendant No.1 dated 22.7.2006 is filed on record by the defendant No. 2. In that it is mentioned that the Fixed Deposit Receipts referred therein are in the name of Madhukar and have matured. He is unable to sign and the receipts be renewed by sending the employee. It has also been informed by subsequent letter to the Bank that the Fixed Deposit Receipts bearing Nos.50868, 50869, 50870, 50871 and 50872 have matured and they may be renewed in the joint name of Madhukar and Sudhakar. The petitioner contends that the said 4 W.P.No.5580/09. amounts have been withdrawn by him. The plaintiff has also specifically contended that the defendant No.1 has transferred the said amount to Uco Bank and other Banks. 5. The Court has taken the prima facie case and has passed equitable order, so as to protect the rights of the plaintiffs. 6. The Court can always resort to provisions of Section 151 of the C.P.C. for protecting the rights of the parties. 7. The trial Court has not committed any error of jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. 8. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Time to give Bank guarantee as directed by the trial Court is extended by four 5 W.P.No.5580/09. (4) weeks from today. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp558009