THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.5426 of 2010 Dated: 03-12-2010 Between: Yelika Venkateswarlu ………..Petitioner and Voosa Thirupati Venkaiah …………Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.5426 of 2010 ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 16-09-2010 in I.A.No.1063 of 2009in O.S.No.132 of 1994 on the file of the learned Principal junior Civil Judge, Bapatla. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.132 of 1994. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of money on the basis of a pronote. The said suit was allowed with costs. Against that, appeal was filed and during pendency of the appeal, stay was sought and the same was granted on condition of depositing of costs. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner deposited costs of Rs.14,248/- in the lower Court. Immediately, the respondent has withdrawn the said amount. Ultimately the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed second appeal before this Court and the same is pending. At this stage, the petitioner filed the present application for recovery of costs deposited by him on the ground that the appeal filed by him was allowed by the lower appellate Court. The Court below disposed of the said application directing the petitioner to file the application after disposal of the second appeal. Not satisfied with the same, the petitioner filed the present revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner succeeded in the appeal, and the conditions stipulated in the provisions under Section 144 CPC are satisfied, the petitioner is entitled to recover the costs from the respondent. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment of this Court in Ganesh Parshad V. Adi Hindu Social Service League rep. by its Hony. Secretary, M.S.Goutom[1], wherein it was held: “15. Section 144, C.P.C. is a salutary provision of law and, in order that this section may apply to a case, three conditions are necessary to be satisfied. They are: (i) the restitution sought must be in respect of a decree or order which had been varied or reversed; (ii) the party applying for restitution must be entitled to the benefit under a reversing decree or order and (iii) the relief claimed must be properly consequential on the reversal or variation of the decree or order. 16. If those conditions are satisfied, it gives no choice or discretion to the court, and the only course it has to follow is to order restitution to the party which had suffered loss on account of the erroneous decree or order.” 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the entire material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to recover the costs deposed by him in the lower Court by virtue of the judgment cited supra, and therefore, the revision deserves to be allowed. 6. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the order dated 16-09-2010 in I.A.No.1063 of 2009in O.S.No.132 of 1994 on the file of the learned Principal junior Civil Judge, Bapatla, is set aside. Consequently, the respondent is directed to pay costs to the petitioner who deposited the same in the lower Court, within a period of three weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ December 03, 2010 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/o. kvr [1] AIR 1975 A.P. 310