THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.791 of 2011 ORDER: The son of the petitioner herein died, in an accident involving a motor vehicle. Herself and her husband filed M.V.O.P.No.45 of 2008 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-, as compensation. In the apportionment, the petitioner was held entitled to receive Rs.1,50,000/- and her husband Rs.30,000/-. While the amount of Rs.30,000/- awarded to her husband was permitted to be withdrawn, the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was directed to keep in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three years. The petitioner filed E.P.No.4 of 2010 for realization of the amount. She has also filed E.A.No.34 of 2010 with a prayer to permit her to withdraw a sum of Rs.18,728/-, which is said to have accrued as interest. The application was processed to a substantial extent; so much so, a direction was issued to give cheque. In the meanwhile, there was change of incumbent in the Tribunal. The new incumbent has heard the matter afresh and passed a detailed order, dated 11.11.2010 dismissing the E.A. The same is challenged in this revision. Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that once an order was passed in the E.A., directing that the amount be released, there was absolutely no basis for the same Court to review the said order. He contends that the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law. It is no doubt true that at one stage of the proceedings, an order was passed on 21.04.2010 directing that a cheque be issued for the amount representing the interest. However, the cheque as such was not issued. At a subsequent stage, it was noticed that there was no direction in the order passed in the O.P., enabling the petitioner herein to withdraw the interest. Unless such a direction existed, it was not at all permissible for the petitioner to claim it by filing an E.P. or E.A. The permission accorded to the petitioner for withdrawal of the interest component would have been a step beyond the scope of the order passed by the trial Court. It is well settled principle of law that an Executing Court cannot travel beyond the scope of the decree. Even now, the petitioner can seek modification of the order or decree to enable her to withdraw the component of interest or any part of the decretal amount, in case she is in dire necessity. Hence, the C.R.P. is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to file application seeking modification of the order and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.45 of 2008. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08.04.2011. GJ