1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Civil Appln. (caf) No. 1031 of 2011 (In FA No. 1435 of 2009) Sant Gajanan Maharaj Bahu Uddeshiya Sanstha & anr. ...Versus... Sunil s/o Vitthalrao Kaluse & anr. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. N.B. Kalwaghe Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Navlani h/f Mr.A.Parchure Advocate for Res. no.1. ... CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 19.04.2011. Heard. C.A. No. 615/11 for grant of stay and C.A. No. 1031/11 for permission to withdraw the amount are disposed of by this common order. Learned counsel for the appellants invited my attention to the order dated 7.3.2011 passed by this Court and stated that 50% amount of decretal amount was allowed to be deposited by this Court and the said amount has accordingly been deposited. He then argued that for the balance 50% of the amount, the appellants are ready to furnish security to the satisfaction of this Court. In reply to the application for withdrawal of the amount by respondent no.1, he argued that there is strong documentary proved 2 evidence on record in the form of documents 1 to 48 (Ex.91)- salary register showing that all the staff members of the school were paid their respective salary for the respective months and in token thereof all of them including respondent no.1 have signed on the receipt. This documentary evidence has not at all been considered by the trial Court while passing the decree. In the absence of any damage to the said evidence in the cross-examination there was no reason to make the decree in question. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the application for withdrawal of the amount deserves to be rejected and the application for stay deserves to be allowed. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1/applicant argued that respondent no.1 should be allowed to withdraw the said amount as the same is his earned wages and he should be allowed to get the fruits of money decree passed in his favour. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties. I have gone through the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. I have also gone through the evidence tendered by both the parties and the documents 1 to 48 (Ex.91), which is proved salary register in order to find out whether there is a prima facie case in favour of the appellants. Having considered the entire evidence oral as well as documentary, prima facie, I 3 find that the said documentary evidence in the form of proved salary register has not at all been shaken in the cross-examination. The said register bears the signature of respondent no.1 on revenue stamp for every month. In the wake of such strong documentary evidence about which the trial Court has not at all adverted to, I think the said evidence was required to be preferred. That having not been done, in my opinion, the appellants have prima facie been successful in proving the payment of salary to respondent no.1 regularly and obtaining his signature on the salary register every month. Under such circumstances, I am satisfied that the deposit of 50% of the decretal amount by the appellants would be enough at this stage and for the balance amount under decree they should be allowed to furnish security to the satisfaction of Registrar (J). The interest of respondent no.1 can be protected by investing the amount deposited in this Court in fixed deposit as per standing orders till the decision of First Appeal. Hence the following order. (i) C.A. No. 615/11 for grant of stay is allowed. Ad interim stay is confirmed. (ii) For the balance 50% amount under decree, appellants are permitted to furnish solvent security to the satisfaction of Registrar (J) of this Court within a period of ten weeks from today. The amount deposited by the appellants shall be invested in fixed 4 deposit as per standing orders. (iii) C.A. No. 1031/11 for withdrawal of the amount is rejected. Hearing of this appeal is expedited. Judge /TA/