: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.550 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1755 OF 2007 M/s.Arora Combines ....Petitioner V/s. Damaji G. Mankar & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.T.R. Yadav i/b Mr.S.S. Pathak for the Petitioner. Ms.Gayatri Singh for Respondent No.1/Applicant in the Notice of Motion. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 24TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. : 1. Respondent No.1 seeks an order allowing him to withdraw the amount deposited by the Petitioner in this Court without furnishing any security. 2. By an order dated 28.4.2008 in Notice of Motion No.150 of 2007 in the above Writ Petition, S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. permitted Respondent No.1 to withdraw the amount subject to his furnishing security. The learned Judge recorded the statement on behalf of Respondent No.1 that the security in the form of his immovable property or other income would be given by him to the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The learned Judge directed that a bank guarantee should not be insisted upon. : 2 : . In view thereof, Respondent No.1 made a statement that he does not press his claim under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act (for short "the said Act"). The Notice of Motion was accordingly disposed of. 3. It is stated that the Prothonotary and Senior Master did not consider the documents furnished by Respondent No.1 to be adequate security. Respondent No.1 is unable to furnish any further evidence of his title in respect of his property. Respondent No.1 has no other security to offer. 4. In view of the order dated 28.4.2008, I am not inclined to allow the amounts deposited in this Court be withdrawn without furnishing the security. . However, the statement by Respondent No.1 that he does not press his claim under Section 17-B of the said Act as recorded in the order dated 28.4.2008 was on the basis that he would be able to furnish appropriate security. Now that he is unable to do so the basis of this statement does not exist. In these circumstances, the ends of justice would be met by permitting Respondent No.1 to withdraw the statement that he is not pressing his claim under Section 17-B : 3 : of the said Act. No prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner by the same. 5. In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion is disposed of by the following order :- Respondent No.1 is allowed to withdraw the statement that he does not press his claim under Section 17-B of the said Act as recorded in the order dated 28.4.2008. Respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to make an application under Section 17-B of the said Act.