JUDGMENT : 1. Apsara Hotels (P) Ltd and two others filed a suit in the Court of the Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City. In this suit an application under Order 39 Rule 1 with a notice of motion was taken out restraining respondents Nos. 1 to 6, namely, M/s. Rajputana Hotels (P) Ltd. (appellant herein) and five others from raising any construction on the land involved in the suit or from alienating any portion of it or from demolishing any existing structures standing thereon. There was a prayer for ad-interim ex-parte injunction. Ultimately the Learned Judge by his order dated April 16, 1980 rejected the application and vacated the ex-parte ad-interim injunction issued by him on December 19, 1979. 2. Plaintiffs carried the matter in appeal to the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 25.8.1980 set aside the order of the Learned District Judge and granted an injunction in the following terms: "The respondents are directed to maintain status quo and are restrained from raising any further constructions on the land in dispute. They are also restrained from creating any charge over the land in dispute and from raising any loans on the security of the land in dispute. This order will be subject to the appellants (plaintiffs) paying the amount at Rs. 3,000/- per mensem with effect from 12.12.1970 upto August, 1976 minus Rs. 18,200/- already paid within a period of one month to the respondent No. 2 (respondent No. 4 here) for being paid to landlord in chief or to be adjusted, if he has already made payment to him." Against the herein extracted order, a petition to obtain special leave under article 136 was moved by the original plaintiffs before this Court. Caveat was filed. Both sides were heard at the admission stage. 3. Caveat was filed. Both sides were heard at the admission stage. 3. On being prima facie satisfied in respect of the contentions advanced before the court, this Court granted special leave to appeal and made the order as under: "The appeal above mentioned being called on for hearing before this Court on the 20th day of January, 1981 UPON counsel for the appearing parties filed an undertaking and UPON perusing the said undertaking and UPON hearing counsel for the appearing parties herein THIS COURT DOTH take on record the undertaking above mentioned duly signed by the parties herein and doth by and with the consent of the parties herein DISPOSE OF the appeal above mentioned in terms of the said undertaking annexed hereto as Schedule 'A'. This Court Doth Further Order that as regards item No. 1 of the consent terms the Appellant herein shall within six months from the date of the final disposal of the said suit remove the structures or buildings that may be erected on the land during the pendency of the suit No. 366 of 1979 pending in the Court of the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur." The undertaking pursuant to which the order was made reads as under: "I, Himanshu Sharma, son of Shri S.P. Sharma, The Director of Rajputana Hotels (P) Ltd., petitioner herein do hereby solemnly affirm and undertake as follows: (1) In the event of the suit being finally decreed against the petitioner (defendants), the petitioner undertakes to remove the structures and/or buildings, that may be erected on the land during the pendency of the suit within such time and in such manner as the Hon'ble Court may direct. (2) The petitioner further undertakes not to raise any contention or base any defence on the ground of any equity arising in the petitioner favour on account of the constructions by the petitioners or any structure and/or building during the pendency of the suit and the same will not be a consideration against the plaintiff in the suit. (3) That the petitioners further undertake, that in event of the suit being finally decreed against the petitioner and before the removal of the structures and/or building as mentioned in clause No. 1, the petitioner will repay and/or discharge and/or satisfy any loans that may have been obtained by it on the security of the land, structure and/or building. (3) That the petitioners further undertake, that in event of the suit being finally decreed against the petitioner and before the removal of the structures and/or building as mentioned in clause No. 1, the petitioner will repay and/or discharge and/or satisfy any loans that may have been obtained by it on the security of the land, structure and/or building. (4) That the petitioner will furnish a Bank guarantee in favour of Respondent No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- on account for the claim in suit as may be ultimately decreed. (5) The Respondent Apsara Hotels (P) Ltd., undertakes to pay the lease rent in pursuant to the High Court judgment dated 25.8.1980. In the light of this undertaking the High Court judgment and order be set aside. New Delhi this the 20th day of January, 1981." 4. The parties appeared before this Court on November 27, 1981 and requested the Court to vary or modify the order dated January 20th, 1981 as prayed for in C.M.P. No. 10661/81. The order reads as under: "This Court had disposed of Civil Appeal No. 256 of 1981 by its judgment dated January 20, 1981. The appeal was disposed of in terms of the undertaking filed in the Court which was duly signed by both the parties and formed integral part of the order. The present C.M.P. No. 10661 of 1981 has been made by the respondent for giving appropriate directions as the necessary bank guarantee as directed in Para 4 of the undertaking has not been given. Both the parties appeared today and filed consent terms concerning the present C.M.P. As the consent terms require change in the undertaking given to the Court, permission of the Court is necessary. We accordingly grant permission and accept consent terms and dispose of the C.M.P. in terms of the compromise placed on record. There will be no order as to costs." 5. Thereafter respondent No. 4 before us moved the present application contending that the amount of rent deposited in the Court pursuant to the order of the High Court must be paid to him. Dr. There will be no order as to costs." 5. Thereafter respondent No. 4 before us moved the present application contending that the amount of rent deposited in the Court pursuant to the order of the High Court must be paid to him. Dr. Chitale who appeared for the first respondent Apsara (P) Ltd., stated that the proceedings arose on a suit filed by Apsara Hotels; and Apsara Hotels desire to withdraw the suit and terminate all proceedings arising from the suit which will unquestionably mean that even the present appeal pursuant to the special leave granted by us would become infructuous as well as the injunction would stand vacated as a necessary consequence. He also stated that the amount of rent deposited in the trial court has already been withdrawn by the plaintiffs. 6. The real dispute in the present petition is as to whether Apsara Hotels plaintiff No. 1 or present applicant respondent No. 4 herein is entitled to withdraw the amount of rent deposited in the trial court pursuant to the direction given by the High Court. According to Mr. Gupta there is no dispute about this position because this position is clear and unquestionable as per the judgment of the High Court. On the other hand, Dr. Chitale contends to the contrary and he pointed out to us that Apsara Hotels has already withdrawn the amount from the Court on 16.1.1982. Mr. Gupta wanted that we should decide this point because when we granted special leave and varied the order of the High Court it is this Court which is responsible for finally adjudicating the dispute raised by him. We are not impressed for two reasons: (i) That when this Court granted leave the Court was only concerned with the order of injunction made by the High Court restraining the Rajputana Hotels from putting up the construction. At that stage this Court was not even remotely concerned with that part of the order of the High Court by which Apsara Hotels was required to deposit the rent in the Court and finally who would be entitled to recover or withdraw the same. (ii) This is an independent dispute with which this Court was not concerned at that stage and therefore even though Mr. (ii) This is an independent dispute with which this Court was not concerned at that stage and therefore even though Mr. Gupta was rather vehement in his criticism that this Court should not have made any order without notice to him we remain unconvinced, because this Court has not dealt with that part of the order of which interpretation and direction is sought in the miscellaneous petition. 7. The question of right to withdraw the amount has assumed some importance because Mr. Gupta wanted us to take note of the fact that Apsara Hotels, the first appellant and the two co-appellants (plaintiffs) after having withdrawn the amount are taking steps to withdraw the suit. May be, it is open to the plaintiffs to withdraw the same with the permission of the Court or even without the permission of the Court. This question of law is kept open because we are not concerned with it. We want to emphatically record one fact that this Court while granting special leave and making the first order dated 20.1.1981 has neither varied nor modified nor amended nor even dealt with that part of the order by which the direction to deposit the rent was made. We also make it clear that the subsequent order by which paragraphs 4 and 5 of the undertaking pursuant to the earlier order were deleted does not modify the order of the High Court at the hands of this Court. That question is kept open. In fact, to whom the deposited lease rent should be paid was not the subject matter of dispute before this Court at all. Therefore, instead of our undertaking to adjudicate this disputed question it would be open to Mr. Gupta to move the appropriate court for redressal of his grievances. We would only like to record that if the suit is sought to be withdrawn with the permission of the Court the present respondent no. 4 should be heard before granting leave. In view of this order the appeal itself stands disposed of and all the consequent orders made by this Court stand vacated. There will be no order as to costs.