1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2131 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2020 OF 2008 Ismail s/o Isulal Shaikh .. Applicant Versus Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation through Regional Manager at Latur and ors. .. Respondents Mr Amit S.Deshpande, Advocate for applicant Mr S.S.Dande, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr S.K.Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent No.2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 19th July 2011 PER COURT 1. This is an application by the applicant/original appellant in First Appeal No.2020 of 2008, seeking modification of our order dated 26.9.2008. By virtue of the aforesaid order, while allowing Civil Application No.10205 of 2008, we had permitted the present applicant to withdraw an amount of Rs.29,53,889/- deposited by the present respondents on the condition of the applicant furnishing Bank guarantee of a nationalized Bank for 50% of the amount. We had also directed the applicant to keep the Bank guarantee in force during the pendency of the appeal and for a period of six months, after the decision of the appeal. In respect of the remaining 50% of the amount, we had permitted the applicant to withdraw the same by furnishing solvent surety to the 2 satisfaction of the Reference Court/executing Court. In addition thereto, we had directed the applicant to give an undertaking to this Court to refund the said amount together with interest in the event this Court ordering the applicant to do so. 2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 26.9.2008, it appears that the applicant has withdrawn 50% of Rs.29,53,889/- on furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the executing Court. The remaining 50% of the amount has not been withdrawn by the applicant by furnishing a Bank guarantee. The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking modification of the aforesaid by allowing the applicant to withdraw the remaining 50% of the amount on furnishing solvent surety instead of furnishing a Bank guarantee. The learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the order passed by the Division Bench dated 26.9.2008 in Civil Application No.10198 of 2008. In the aforesaid order, it appears that this Court had directed the applicant therein to withdraw 50% of Rs.72,06,451/- on furnishing a Bank guarantee of a nationalized Bank and had also imposed other conditions. The aforesaid order, therefore, would not assist the applicant in seeking modification of the order passed in Civil Application No.10205 of 2008. Reliance is also placed on the order dated 12.1.2009 in Civil Application No.12875 of 2008. In the said matter, the Court had permitted the applicant to withdraw 50% of the amount, which was deposited on the applicant 3 furnishing a Bank guarantee. However, the aforesaid order came to be modified by permitting the applicant to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount by permitting to furnish Bank guarantee for 25% and solvent surety for the remaining 25% of the 50%, which was allowed to be withdrawn. The aforesaid order also would not assist the applicant in advancing his case for modification of the order. 3. We have heard Mr Amit Deshpande, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr S.S.Dande, learned Counsel for respondent No.1. According to us, no modification in our earlier order is called for. We, however, direct the Reference Court/Executing Court to invest the remaining amount in fix deposit of a Nationalized Bank, in the event the applicant chooses not to withdraw the said amount. Application dismissed. ( A.V. POTDAR, J. ) ( P.V. HARDAS, J. ) (vvr/2131.11criappln)