THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1550 OF 2000 O R D E R: The revision is filed against the order in E.A.No.118 of 1999 in E.P.No.59 of 1991, where-under the revision petitioners, who are the judgment debtors, pleaded for stay of the proceedings in the execution petition in O.S.No.729 of 1984 under Order XXI Rule 29 read with 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short, ‘CPC’). The learned Second Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, while modifying the earlier order of stay for furnishing security directed the revision petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.53,196.72 Ps. 2. It is the claim of the revision petitioners that a suit for dissolution of the partnership was filed in O.S.No.1482 of 1984 on the file of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and in that huge amount is due to the revision petitioners from the decree-holder. Therefore, the direction to deposit the cash by the lower Court by altering the earlier order of furnishing security is not tenable. In fact, this Court vide its order dated 11.04.2002 has allowed the revision on the ground that the power exercised by the lower Court in directing the deposit of the cash when already a security is furnished is not proper. However, Review C.M.P.No.21665 of 2003 was filed and on 09.02.2004 this Court has set aside the order passed earlier on the representation that the decree in O.S.No.1482 of 1984, which was earlier in favour of the revision petitioners, was set aside in C.C.C.A.Nos.128 of 2000 and 97 of 2000. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that the matter was remanded to the lower Court in the above C.C.C.As and after remand, on 08.05.2003 the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court has again passed a decree in favour of the revision petitioners for their claim. Though the above judgment may be a subject matter of appeal, but still a decree is there in favour of the revision petitioners. 4. In view of the fact that there is already cross decree and the revision petitioners are found entitled to certain sum, it will be inequitable to direct them to deposit the money when already a guarantee was furnished. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners represents that under Order XXI Rule 19 of CPC, they have got a right for adjustment of the amounts in cross decree. But, however, the present application is not filed under that provision and the petitioners are at liberty to seek the remedy under Order XXI Rule 19 of CPC and therefore, the direction to deposit the cash is concerned is liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, with the above observation, the revision is allowed and the security given by the revision petitioners shall continue till the disposal of the execution petition. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 17-06-2011. INL