1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD C. A. NO. 5671 OF 2009 IN C. A. NO. 7307 OF 2005 FIRST APPEAL NO. 308 OF 2008 1. Vimalbai w/o Gangaram Lamdade and others - - Applicants Versus 1. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another - - Respondents Shri Ganesh Patil, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Dhananjay Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 16TH JUNE, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard both the counsels extensively. C. A. No. 7307/2005 was moved by the insurance company making several averments and allegations to the extent of withdrawal of the amount by the original claimants. The affidavit of Mr. Akhtar Abbas Halari of the insurance company discloses that on an application moved by the claimant, the 2 learned Judge on 07.06.2005 has passed the order allowing claimants withdrawal. The affidavit further indicate, thereafter four different petitions bearing No. 374/2005, 384/2005, 450/2005 and 451/2005 were moved and claimants have withdrawn entire remaining amount including the amount invested in Fixed Deposits. Thus, according to Mr. Deshpande it is breach of terms of orders passed by this Court. 2. The counsel for the claimants has furnished affidavit and pointed that on the date when such applications for withdrawal were made, there was no stay operating against the applicants/original claimants for withdrawal. 3. On this aspect, Mr. Deshpande could not traverse, getting ad- interim injunction or stay, limited for four weeks and not getting it extended, naturally carries an impression that the order is not in force and in this scenario, there is apparently no mistake on the part of the learned Judge in entertaining the applications and allowing the claimants to withdraw the amount. The lack of knowledge at the material time was due to laches and lapses of the appellant herein which the appellant should avoid, but not, when four different day petitions were filed before the Member, M. A. C. T. Osmanabad, for withdrawal of the amount. 4. The order solicited from this Court on 18th March, 2009, whereby, this Court even directed the learned Judge to cause inquiry in the matter 3 as to how, in spite of the order and stay, which allowed such withdrawal. This has naturally caused miserable situation for the learned Judge dealing with the matter equally his staff. This was not contemplated and particularly when the counsel for the appellant was aware of the fact of such application of withdrawal and also that there was no extension of the interim protection. 5. Now, by the present application 5671/09 modification to the order dated 18.03.2009 referred above passed in Civil Application No. 7307/05 is sought, by claimants. 6. It is obvious, at the time of passing ad-interim relief on 22.06.2005, there was already application by the claimants before the learned Judge, and by order dated 07.06.2005 and 10.06.2005 he has allowed the applicant to withdraw the amount and directed the insurance company to pay the amount and consequently the claimants have withdrawn Rs. 64,063/- and Rs. 64,060/- on the dates namely 09.06.2005 and 16.06.2005. This is conspicuously not spelt on 22.06.2005 by appellant. The subsequent withdrawals were in September, October and December 2005. In the above scenario a very sorry state of affair being portrayed, the order dated 18.03.2009 in civil application No. 7307/2005 is modified, permitting the applicants/original claimants to retain the amount which they have withdrawn subject to furnishing an undertaking to redeposit it, in the event they loose the matter. The application for 4 modification is allowed in above terms. [ K. U. CHANDIWAL ] JUDGE bsb/June 09/CA 5671.09