JUDGMENT
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. This CRP, is filed against the order, dated 20-1-2004, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, in E.P. No. 60 of 2003 in O.S. No. 31 of 1993.
2. At the stage of admission, this Court issued notice to the respondents. On service of notice, the respondents entered appearance through Sri K. Mahipathi Rao, the learned Counsel.
3. Extensive arguments are advanced by Sri K. Harinath, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Mahipathi Rao, learned Counsel for respondents.
4. Respondents 1 to 15 are the employees of A.P.S.R.T.C., at Wanaparthy Depot. They are said to have secured loans from M/s. Nagarjuna Investment Trust Limited, the 16th respondent herein, for purchase of some consumer durables. When they expected that their employer, the petitioner herein, is going to effect deductions from their salaries, for repayment of the loans to the 16th respondent, they filed O.S. No. 31 of 1993, for a declaration that the petitioner is not entitled to effect any deductions from their salaries. They also filed I.A. No. 513 of 1993, under Order 39 Rule 1 of C.P.C., to restrain the petitioner herein from making any deductions, during the pendency of the suit. The Trial Court granted an ex parte temporary injunction on 23-11-1993.
5. The 16th respondent was not a party to the suit. However, it filed C.R.P. No. 1852 of 1994, in this Court, challenging the order passed in IA No. 513 of 1993. An order of interim suspension was granted on 17-5-1994. On the strength of interim suspension, the petitioner started effecting deductions from the salaries of the Respondents 1 to 15. The C.R.P., was ultimately dismissed on 11-9-1996, leaving it open to the 16th respondent to work out its remedies in the suit. The suit itself was decreed thereafter, on 18-8-1997, and the decree became final.
6. The Respondents 1 to 15 filed I.A. No. 11 of 2001 for restitution, namely, repayment of the amount, that was deducted from their salaries, on the strength of the order passed by this Court on 17-5-1994, in the C.R.P. The Trial Court allowed the I.A., through its order, dated 4-4-2002. This has also become final. Thereafter, Respondents 1 to 15 filed E.P., to recover the amount covered by the order of restitution.
7. The petitioner raised an objection, for recovery of the amount from it, on the strength of order of restitution. It was contended that the E.P., was not maintainable and that the order passed in I.A. No. 11 of 2001 was without jurisdiction. Another plea raised by the petitioner was that there was no relief for recovery of the amount in the suit itself, and as such, the question of recovery of any amount, on the basis of the decree, does not arise. Reference is also made to the order said to have been passed by the District Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagar, dismissing the claims made by Respondents 1 to 15. On a consideration of the rival contentions, the Trial Court allowed the E.P., through the order under revision.
8. It is a matter of record that Respondents 1 to 15 obtained an order of temporary injunction in I.A. No. 513 of 1993, against the petitioner herein on 26-11-1993. It is not as if this order brought about any financial liability upon the petitioner. The 16th respondent, who was not a party to the suit, at that time, has filed C.R.P. No. 1852 of 1994, before this Court, and obtained an order of interim suspension on 17-5-1994. The order of interim suspension did not by itself, compel the petitioner to effect deductions from the salaries of Respondents 1 to 15. However, it has chosen to make deductions from the month of May, 1994 itself, till August 1996, when the C.R.P., was dismissed. The deductions were made by the petitioner at the instance of the 16th respondent. When the suit was decreed, neither the petitioner nor the 16th respondent have taken any steps against it. They have permitted the decree to become final. Thereafter, I.A. No. 11 of 2001 was filed for restitution. They have neither offered any resistance to this application nor challenged the order passed therein. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to ignore the outcome of the order of restitution.
9. The contention that the Trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain application under Section 144 CPC, cannot be countenanced. Whenever an order passed by the Trial Court is set aside, modified, or varied, Section 144 C.P.C., entitles a party to be put in the same position, as it would have been, but for such orders, which were modified or set aside. The petitioner had effected deductions only on the strength of an interim order, passed by this Court, on 17-5-1994 in the C.R.P. The C.R.P. was dismissed on 11-9-1996. Thereafter, all these orders merged into the decree that was passed by the Trial Court on 18-8-1997. The consequence of dismissal of the C.R.P., is that the amounts deducted from the salaries of the Respondents 1 to 15, on the strength of the interim orders passed therein, be restored to them. The petitioner or Respondent No. 16 cannot retain such amounts, even after dismissal of C.R.P. Section 144 is enacted only to meet such contingencies. The petitioner can recover the amount from the 16th respondent. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order under revision. The CRP deserves to be dismissed.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be granted installments for payment of the decretal amount.
11. While passing interim order on 24-3-2004, this Court imposed a condition that the petitioner shall deposit 3/4th of the decretal amount in the Executing Court, within three weeks. Learned Counsel submits that this condition could not be complied with, on account of delay of three days in presentation, though the demand draft was taken within time.
12. The delay is condoned, and it shall be open to the petitioner to deposit 3/4th of the decretal amount, within one week from today. The balance l/4th shall be deposited into the Executing Court, within four weeks from today.
13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under the guise of the order in IA No. 11 of 2001, the amount not deducted from the Respondents 1 to 15 is also sought to be recovered. A perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court in IA No. 11 of 2001, however, discloses that the prayer was only for recovering the amount deducted from the salaries of Respondents 1 to 15, for the period May, 1994, to August, 1996. The amount is also quantified at Rs. 2,85,852/-. Hence, there is no need to clarify this aspect.
14. The CRP is accordingly dismissed with the above observations.