Judgment M.P.Varma, J. 1. This application in revision is directed against an order dated 17.6.1980 passed by Sri Md. Zeauddin, Additional Sub-Judge, Patna, in Execution case No. 6/1979. By this order the Court has refused the prayer of the petitioner for withdrawal of the amount deposited in Court by way of rent. Opposite party had filed Money Suit in the Court of the Additional Sub-Judge as plaintiff against the defendant and on contest the suit was decreed against which the petitioner preferred First Appeal No. 495 of 1979, which is pending in this Hon ble Court. It is stated that the petitioner filed an application under Order 41, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code for the stay of the execution case referred to above filed by the opposite party for execution of the decree and this Hon ble Court passed an interim order of stay on 12.5.1980. It is stated that the order was communicated to the Court below and the learned Subordinate Judge has already stayed the execution proceeding. But in the order impugned the learned Subordinate Judge held that the petitioner will not be permitted to withdraw the money deposited in Court. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also for the opposite party. The impugned order, in my opinion is a valid order and does not warrant any interference by this Court. It is crystal clear that the executing Court has simply refused the withdrawal of the amount deposited in the Court. In my opinion, the order of interim stay of the execution granted in First Appeal No. 495 of 1979, as referred to above does not ipso facto entitles the petitioner to claim refund of the rental deposited against which an execution has been levied. I may however, add that the petitioner, instead of moving the Court below should have obtained a direction to that effect from this Hon ble Court in the said First Appeal itself. 3. In the result, this application fails and is dismissed as such. No order for costs.