THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A.No. 76 of 2010 J U D G M E N T: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant against the order dated 25.01.2010 in I.A. No. 182 of 2009 in O.S. No. 4 of 2008, on the file of the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. The appellant herein filed O.S.No. 4 of 2008 against the respondents for the relief of partition of suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.14.00 in Survey No. 93 situated in Mustipally Village of Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and for payment of Rs.10,90,500/- towards her one-fourth share in the compensation awarded for the land in Survey No.157/2, which was acquired by the Government for the purpose of Priyadarshini Jurala Project. The case of the appellant is that she is entitled to be given one- fourth share in the landed property as well as the compensation granted in respect of the land in Survey No. 157/2. It is her further case that her sister Neelamma and respondents 1, 3 to 5 have withdrawn various amounts deposited to the credit of O.P.Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 28 of 2002, and they are trying to withdraw some more amount deposited to the credit of O.P.No. 16, 17, 18 and 28 of 2002. Therefore, she filed I.A. No. 182 of 2009 seeking to grant temporary injunction restraining respondents 1, 3 to 5 from withdrawing any amounts out of E.A.No. 1020 of 2009 in E.P.No. 228 of 2006 in O.P.No. 17 of 2002, E.A.No. 89 of 2009 in E.P.No. 113 of 2006 in O.P.No. 16 of 2002, E.A.No. 897 of 2009 in E.P.No. 124 of 2006 in O.P.No. 28 of 2002 and E.A.No. 891 of 2009 in E.P.No. 114 of 2006 in O.P.No. 18 of 2002 pending on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal. The learned Judge, after considering the material available on record, held that the appellant has failed to prove the prima facie case and balance of convenience in her favour and that mere withdrawal of amount by the respondents will not defeat her claim in the suit and accordingly, dismissed the Application. Hence, the appellant has filed this Appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that once the respondents are permitted to withdraw the entire amount, it will be difficult for the appellant to recover the same, if she succeeds in the suit. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents- caveators. Since the suit filed by the appellant for partition of the suit schedule property is pending consideration, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if a direction restraining the respondents from withdrawing one-fourth of the amount lying to the credit of O.P.Nos. 16,17, 18 and 28 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, till the disposal of the suit, is issued. It is needless to mention that the respondents are entitled to withdraw three-fourth of the deposited amount. With the above said modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. --------------------- (N.V. RAMANA, J) --------------------------- (NOUSHAD ALI,J) 23rd February 2010 ksld