1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.799 OF 2006 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.545 OF 2006 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.123 OF 2006 IN HYDERABAD SUIT NO.402 OF 1998 Mrs Roma Sunil Vohra and anr. ...Appellants v/s Hyderabad Industries Ltd. And ors. ...Respondents Mr S.P. Dubey for Appellants. Mr Harish Pandya with Mr D. Juvekar i/b M/s Khaitan and Co. for Respondent No.1. Mr S.P. Kanuga for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND SMT R.P. SONDURBALDOTA JJ. DATE : 7TH JUNE 2010. 2 P.C. :- 1] Admitted facts are as under. 2] In suit No.402 of 1998 filed in a Court at Hyderabad by respondent No.1, a money decree in the amount of Rs.7,18,237/- payable with interest at the rate of 15 % p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6 % p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realisation was passed. That decree was passed against respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. Execution application No.123 of 2006 was taken out by the decree holders against the judgment debtors in this Court. In that execution application, immovable property in which the present appellants claim interest, was attached by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Chamber summons No.545 of 2006 was taken out by the appellants for lifting the attachment because according to the appellants, they are owners of the property. The defence of the decree holder was that the appellants are not owners of the property. The alleged 3 transfer in their favour is contrary to law. The chamber summons was however not granted by the learned Single Judge and was disposed off by order dated 10 th October 2006. It is an admitted position that during the pendency of this appeal, the appellants have deposited an amount of Rs. 15,11,109/- which, according to the judgment debtors and the appellants, was the amount mentioned in the execution application. The decree holder was permitted to withdraw that amount, but the decree holder has not withdrawn the amount with the result the amount is lying in deposit duly invested. The learned counsel appearing for appellants informs that now the amount deposited with interest is above Rs.18,00,000/-. The learned counsel appearing for decree holder has given us the statement which shows that the decretal amount as on 15 th April 2010, according to him, would be above Rs.17,00,000/-. It is thus clear that in any case, the decretal amount as per the decree passed in Hyderabad suit No.402 of 1998 has been deposited in the Court and neither the appellants nor the judgment debtors have 4 any objection to the decree holder withdrawing that amount towards adjustment of the decretal amount. It is thus clear that as the judgment debtors or the appellants have deposited the decretal amount substantially and the judgment debtors have made a statement before us that in appropriate proceedings taken out by the decree holder if the learned Single Judge of this Court comes to the conclusion that any additional amount is required to be paid in satisfaction of the decree, the judgment debtors will pay that amount, in our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice. 3] The Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court shall permit the decree holder to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellants with accruals if any. The decree holder shall be at liberty to apply for appropriate orders before the learned Single Judge if according to the decree holder, some more amount is liable to be recovered in execution of the decree passed in Hyderabad suit No.402 of 1998. The undertaking of the judgment debtors given to this 5 Court referred to above is accepted. Now, it is apparent that the decree is substantially satisfied. There is no justification to continue attachment of any property in execution of that decree. Therefore, in our opinion, there is no question of dealing with the question whether transfer of the property in favour of the appellants is valid or invalid. That question is left open to be raised before the appropriate forum. The order impugned is set aside. All contentions to both the parties are kept open. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. (JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH) (JUSTICE SMT R.P. SONDURBALDOTA)