: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER OF SUMMONS NO.739 OF 2010 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 336 OF 2009 Ahmed M. Rowjee .. Plaintiff v/s. Sadruddin Hasa Daya & Ors. .. Defendants ......... Mr. Ahmed M. Rowjee plaintiff in person Mr. Jagdish Chaudhary i/by M/s. Nankani & Associates for defendants ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 30th JUNE, 2010. P.C. : 1. By this chamber summons, plaintiff wants that he be permitted to withdraw Rs.4 lakhs without any security or guarantee. He also wants that defendants should be directed to deposit Rs.2 lakhs. I have heard plaintiff in person as well as learned Counsel for the defendants. : 2 : 2. While disposing of the Summons for Judgment No.90 of 2009, the Court had passed an order on 14th August, 2009 thereby directing the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs.4 lakhs to contest the suit. Permission was granted to the plaintiff to withdraw the said amount. The relevant part of the operative order is as follows. “In the event the amount is deposited, the plaintiff is at liberty to apply for its withdrawal. On such application being made the same will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. 3. The plaintiff took out Notice of Motion No.4370 of 2009 seeking withdrawal of the said amount. That motion was heard and disposed of by me by my order dated 19th April, 2010. The plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the amount on furnishing the bank guarantee. The plaintiff now wants modification of the order and wants to withdraw the amount without furnishing security etc. He also wants that defendants be directed to deposit Rs.2 lakhs by way of additional deposit. It must be mentioned that in the order dated 14th August, 2009, there is no : 3 : permission to the plaintiff to withdraw the amount without any security or guarantee and the plaintiff was directed to make an application. Needless to mention that such an application was to be heard on merits. The application was decided and plaintiff was directed to furnish a bank guarantee. 4. The need to call upon the plaintiff to furnish bank guarantee was to secure the interest of the defendants. The case of the plaintiff is pending and it is possible that the case may not go in favour of the plaintiff. If plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the said amount without any security or guarantee and if the plaintiff looses, it will not be easy for the defendants to recover the amount and to that extent the defendants would be prejudiced. It is only with a view to protect the interest of both sides, the order was passed directing plaintiff to furnish bank guarantee so that in case plaintiff looses the case, bank guarantee can be encashed and the defendants’ money can be secured. In my view, it would not be appropriate to allow the plaintiff to withdraw the amount without any security or guarantee. To that extent, the request cannot be granted. : 4 : 5. So far as the request of the plaintiff to call upon the defendants to deposit additional sum of Rs.2 lakhs, the said request cannot be entertained by this Court as the Court while disposing of the Summons for Judgment, fixed the sum of Rs.4 lakhs to be deposited by the defendants. If the plaintiff is aggrieved by the said order, it is open for him to challenge the same and submit before the learned Appellate Bench that the amount ought to have been Rs.6 lakhs. Once the Summons for Judgment is disposed of as per normal procedure, defendants cannot be asked to pay additional amount. With this, the request is rejected. In the circumstances mentioned aforesaid, the Chamber Summons is required to be dismissed. Hence, the following order is passed. ORDER (i) The Chamber Summons is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)