1 C.A. No.5062 .11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5062 OF 2011 (Smt. Hema @ Hemlata Sanjay Rana & Ors V. Surkayant S/o Bansilal Rana & Ors) in FIRST APPEAL NO. 1953 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATED : 29th APRIL, 2011 PER COURT : 1. This is an application for withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 1,93,343/- (Rs. One lakh ninety three thousand three hundred forty three) deposited by the non applicant, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. 3. Shri Totla, learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in fact, the present applicants have been granted 1/3rd share in the suit properties, and the present amount 2 C.A. No.5062 .11 is part of the same. Even trial Court while answering the issue No. 3, has specifically answered the said issue in affirmative, holding that the non-applicants refuse to pay an amount of 1,93,343/- (Rs. One lakh ninety three thousand three hundred forty three). But simply because the same is not appearing in the operative part of the order, that would not mean that the applicants are dis-entitled to the said amount. According to the learned Counsel, operative order has to be in consonance with the reasonings. For the said purpose learned counsel relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in a case of “Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan V. Hari Prasad Bhuyan and Others, reported in (2003) 1 S.C.C. 197” and the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of Tripura High Court in case of “Amarendra Nath V. Smt. Maharoni Kanchan Prava Mahadevya, reported in AIR 1963 Tripura 55”. 4. Per contra, Shri Nandode, learned counsel for the non-applicants submits that 3 C.A. No.5062 .11 when the operative part of the Judgment nor the Decree specifies the entitlement of the applicant to receive the amount, withdrawal of the same cannot be allowed. For the said purpose relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in a case of “ M/s. Geetha Arta V. A. Chandrasekaran & Ors., reported in 2009(3) ALL MR 977 (S.C.). 5. No doubt, the issue No. 3 is answered in the affirmative by the Trial Judge, but while passing the final Judgment in the operative part, it no where appears that the said amount has been directed to be paid to the said applicants. The present appeal is admitted and pending before this Court for final disposal. As on today, decree does not specify nor cast burden on the present non-applicants to pay the said amount to the applicanst. As such, it would be too premature at this stage, to consider the application in the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court, in case of M/s. Geetha 4 C.A. No.5062 .11 Arta V. A. Chandrasekaran & Ors.” referred supra. 6. In the light of above, the present application at this stage, is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The applicants are at liberty to move such application after taking necessary steps as is permissible in law. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ) SDM*