L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS CRP is filed against the order dated 18-6-2002 in LA. No. 122 of 2000 in O. S. No. 667 of 1988 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda. The order under revision came to be passed under peculiar circumstances.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed O. S. No. 809 of 1989 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, miryalaguda against the 2nd respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,760. 00. The suit was decreed on 4-10-1990. Since the decree was not complied with, the petitioner filed E. P. No. 13 of 1991 against the 2nd respondent.

( 3 ) THE 1st respondent filed O. S. No. 667 of 1988 in the Court of the Senior civil Judge, Miryalaguda against the 2nd, respondent for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. A sum of Rs. 8,000. 00 remained unpaid towards balance of consideration. The 1st respondent volunteered to deposit that amount into the Court, obviously to establish his plea that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The suit was initially decreed ex parte. The 1st respondent also filed E. P. against the 2nd respondent. At the instance of the latter, the ex parte decree was set aside and the suit was restored to file.

( 4 ) WHEN O. S. No. 667 of 1988 was pending, after being restored, the petitioner came to know that an amount of Rs. 8,000. 00 payable to the 2nd respondent was lying to the credit of that suit. Therefore, he filed application in the E. P. 13 of 1991 to send for the said amount. The application was ordered and the amount of Rs. 8,000. 00 deposited by the 1st respondent was sent to the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, miryalaguda for compliance with the decree in E. P. No. 13 of 1991. On the amount being sent, it was paid to the petitioner, towards the part satisfaction of the decree.

( 5 ) LATER on, O. S. No. 667 of 1988 itself was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the 1st respondent, plaintiff therein, filed I. A. No. 122 of 2000 under Section 144 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure for recovery of the sum of rs. 8,000/- from the petitioner. The LA. was allowed by the Trial Court.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application under Section 144 of C. P. C. was not maintainable, once the suit itself was dismissed for default. It is also his case that, if at all the 1st respondent, the plaintiff in O. S. No. 667 of 1988 was not serious about pursuing his remedy against the 2nd respondent, it was open to him to take steps for recovery of the amount of rs. 8,000/- also. He contends that the petitioner is not a party to that suit and the question of order being passed against him under Section 144 C. P. C. does not arise.

( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that his client deposited the amount of Rs. 8,000. 00 voluntarily and the 2nd respondent, the sole defendant in that suit did not have any claim over that amount. He contends that the said amount was sent for and paid to the petitioner without knowledge of his client. Placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court in maddula Kasiyya v. Jallipalli Pullayya, air 1974 AP 220, the learned Counsel submits that the amount deposited in such circumstances cannot be the subject-matter of attachment in a decree passed in another suit. Though the 2nd respondent is also served through publication of notice in news paper, under the orders of this Court, he has not chosen to respond.

( 8 ) THE 2nd respondent figured as the sole defendant in O. S. No. 809 of 1989 filed by the petitioner in the Court of the Junior civil Judge, Miryalaguda for recovery of certain amount, and in O. S. No. 667 of 1988 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, miryalaguda filed by the 1st respondent for specific performance of agreement of sale. The suit filed by the petitioner was decreed on 4-10-1990. The petitioner filed e. P. No. 13 of 1991. The 1st respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 8,000. 00 to the credit of the suit in the suit filed by him towards balance of consideration

Click Here to Read the rest of this document