THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.2994 of 2009 Date of Order:09-10-2009 Between: Peyyala Indira ..Petitioner and 1.V.Gnana Prakash and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.2994 of 2009 order: This revision is directed against the orders of the Principal District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry dated 27-02-2009 passed in I.A.No.2581of 2008 in O.P.No.277 of 1998 whereby the petition filed by the 1st respondent herein for restitution of Rs.42,350/- withdrawn by the petitioner in the O.P. with interest was ordered. The petitioner herein filed O.P. against the 1st and his wife—2nd respondent for recovery of Rs.40,000/- on the basis of chit fund transaction. The 2nd respondent—wife filed I.P.No.10 of 1996 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry to declare her as insolvent. It was further alleged that the 1st respondent being the husband and trustee for safeguarding the amounts is liable to pay the amount. The 1st respondent contested the main petition pleading that he is not liable to pay the chit amount and claim is also bared by limitation. The learned Judge allowed the O.P. for recovery of Rs.40,000/- with interest. Thereupon the 1st respondent filed C.R.P.No.5131 of 2003 before this Court against the order dated 21-07-2003 passed in the O.P. This Court by order dated 20-02-2004 in C.M.P.No.23206 of 2003 in C.R.P.No.5131 of 2003 stayed the orders passed in O.P. on condition of 1st respondent depositing half of the decretal amount within a period of six weeks from the date of order. Accordingly the 1st respondent deposited the said amount to the credit of O.P. On petitioner herein filing C.M.P.No.13968 of 2004 the order dated 22- 02-2004 passed in C.M.P.No.23206 of 2003 was modified and permitted the petitioner herein to withdraw half of the amount so deposited without any security, but she has (petitioner herein) withdrawn the entire amount deposited without furnishing any security for the balance deposit. Ultimately the revision filed by the 1st respondent was allowed setting aside the order passed in O.P. On allowing the revision the 1st respondent filed the above I.A.No.2581 of 2007 for restitution of Rs.42,350/- withdrawn by the petitioner herein. The lower Court by the impugned order dated 27-02-2009 allowed the petition ordering restitution of Rs.42,350/- withdrawn by the petitioner herein. Questioning the same the present revision has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that in the absence of any order passed by the High Court while disposing of revision for refund of the amount, restitution cannot be ordered by the lower court. Therefore, the I.A. filed by the 1st respondent ought to have been dismissed. I do not see any force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason, the interim order passed pending revision is subject to the amounts so deposited pursuant to the decree passed by the lower Court. Once the revision is allowed and decree was set aside, there is no decree in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the amount so deposited by the 1st respondent towards half of the decretal amount as directed by this Court pending revision has to be restored. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the lower Court does not suffer from any illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction warranting interference. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 09-10-2009 Murthy