1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5343 OF 2008 Vasudeobhai Rathor & Ors. Vs. Neela Rathor & Others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri A. M. Ghare Adv for petitioners. Shri R. R. Shrivastava Adv for respondents. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 9 th JULY, 2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent No.1. Respondent No.1’s share has been determined by a decree at 15%. The entire amount of rent that is being recovered by the petitioner is in the custody of the petitioners except the one which is already deposited in the Court. Both parties have submitted their calculations. According to respondent No.1 a sum of Rs. 9,22,203/- is due and 2 recoverable from the petitioners while after giving calculations according to petitioner amount as payable to the respondent No. 1 comes to Rs. 4,02,669/-. These calculations are for the period from 20.11.2006 to 30.06.2009. Their appears to be a serious dispute as to what is exact amount that is recoverable by the respondent No.1 as her 15% share. Since 15% share has not been paid to respondent No.1 entire amount of rent is under attachment of the Court in execution of the decree. The petitioners counsel submits that as a temporary arrangement the Court may consider the release of the amount in favour of the petitioners as well as respondent since both the parties are unnecessarily suffering loss of interest on the amount and it is on the other hand lying under attachment. After having considered the submissions on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents I find that the respondent should be paid a sum of Rs. 5 lacs and the disputed sum of Rs. 4 lacs should be in the custody of the Civil Court and it should remain in fixed deposit. Entitlement of that amount shall be decided on merits. Rest of the amount be paid to the petitioner. This order is passed by the Court without prejudice to the rights of any of the parties in the suit. Respondent No.1 would also be entitled to recover 15% of the amount that may be deposited every month in the Court by the 3 tenants. This would be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners. It is made clear that the respondent No.1 according to petitioners is liable to pay expenses for maintenance of the building etc. The amount of 15% that is being paid to the respondent No.1 would be subject to deduction of expenses that may be recoverable from the respondent No.1 after the final calculation. JUDGE svk 4 5 6