( 1 ). Special leave granted. ( 2 ). The appellants prefer this appeal from the order dated 21/08/1989 of the High court of Rajasthan as S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal no. 196 of 1988. By the order the High court reversed an interlocutory order dated 27/10/1988 made by the learned Additional District judge, Raisinghnagar, in Civil Case No. 55 of 1988, brought by the appellants. ( 3 ). The interlocutory order interdicted certain proceedings initiated by the State for the recovery from the appellants of Rs. 67,64,490. 75 by sale of appellants immovable properties. The amount was stated to be due in respect of a liquor contract entered into by an association of persons carrying on business as excise contractors under the name and style "bhim Sen and Party", which appellants claim, is a firm of partners. The other side disputes that status. It is, however, not necessary for the present purpose to say anything about it. Suffice it to say, that all themembers of this bhim Sen and Party, in relation to the State, were co-licensees of the excise privilege. By the order under appeal the High court vacated the stay of the recovery proceedings. ( 4 ). The matter arises this way: On 31/03/1988, the State, for certain reasons, which are also unnecessary to be gone into for the present purpose, purported to cancel the excise contract. Rs. 67,64,490. 75 were claimed to be due by the licensees to the State. The State initiated proceedings to bring the properties of the present appellants as well as the properties of Sri Bhim Sen Garg, respondent 3 and certain other co-licensees, to sale for the recovery of the dues. Respondent 3 filed a writ petition in the High court in which an interlocutory order dated 7/10/1988 was passed staying, on terms, the auction of the attached properties belonging to the said Sri Bhim Sen Garg. For determining the terms subject to which the stay should be granted the High court, on certain calculations of its own, was persuaded to the view that an amount of Rs. 24,70,471. 76 plus interest could broadly be estimated to be due and this sum was, accordingly, directed to be paid to the State as a condition for grant of stay. 24,70,471. 76 plus interest could broadly be estimated to be due and this sum was, accordingly, directed to be paid to the State as a condition for grant of stay. Against that order respondent 3 came up in appeal to this court in C. A. No. 3960 of 1989 and this court on 15/09/1989 made an order in terms following: "special leave is granted. THE High court in the impugned order directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 24. 70 lakhs, plus interest to the State as a condition for postponing the auction of the attached property in question. We modify the order and direct the appellant to deposit the aforesaid amount in court, which will not be withdrawn by the State during the pendency of the writ petition in the High court. We also allow one months time to the appellant to make the deposit in the high court. The Registrar of the High court may invest the deposited amount in interest bearing short deposit with any nationalised bank. On the aforesaid amount being deposited by the appellant the bank guarantee, which has been furnished by him in pursuance of this courts order, shall stand discharged. " ( 5 ) PRESENTLY, respondent 3, deposited Rs. 28,50,000. 00 in the High court which is stated now to remain in a short term deposit in a bank. ( 6 ). In relation to proceedings for recovery against the appellants they filed the suit before the Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar and, as stated earlier, obtained in interlocutory order dated 27/10/1988 interdicting the auction sale. Against that order the State preferred the said appeal S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 196 of 1988. On 21/08/1989, that appeal was allowed by the High court which set aside the stay order granted by the trial court. The present appeal is directed against this order vacating stay. ( 7 ). The High court in terms, rejected the appellants claim that in view of the circumstance that another alleged partner of the firm, namely, Sri Bhim Sen Garg had deposited the entire sum such compliance by one of the co-licensees, would enure to the benefit of the other co-licensees, and that, therefore, independent proceedings to recover the same dues by recourse to the sale of properties of the appellants was not justified. ( 8 ). ( 8 ). The effect of the High courts order dated 21/08/1989 is that, notwithstanding the pendency of their suit, State was free to proceed against appellants properties for the recovery of the sums due. In our opinion, no exception could be taken to the view taken by the high court. What Sri Bhim Sen Garg deposited, was under and pursuant to the order in his writ petition, to secure a stay of sale of his properties. The dues were not paid to the State, but the State was not free to proceed against Sri Bhim Sen Gargs properties. The deposit by Sri Bhim sen Garg did not constitute extinguishment by discharge of the liability. The liability of the licensees, being joint and several, the deposit by itself could not be held to enure to the benefit of the appellants also, entitling them to contend that the State ought not to proceed against their properties also. In this view of the matter, we find that the order under appeal is wholly unexceptionable and does not call for interference in appeal. ( 9 ). Sri Badri Das Sharma, appellants learned counsel, however, submitted that as was done by the High court in the writ petition of Sri bhim Sen Garg, an order of stay of sale of appellants properties also be made on similar terms. We think that this matter merits examination. ( 10 ). Having regard to all the circumstances relevant to the interlocutory stage and as a tentative estimate, without prejudice to the claims, rights and contentions of all the parties and subject further to final accounting, the liability of "bhim Sen and Party" in favour of the state could be estimated at about Rs. 36 lakhs. This, we make it clear, is a purely tentative estimate. The State claims that it is entitled to recover rs 50 lakhs or thereabouts. At this stage if the appellants deposit, within four weeks, from today, a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs in the High court, in D. B. Civil Writ No. 3373 of 1988, the State shall not proceed against the properties of the appellants also for recovery of the dues. ( 11 ). Out of the sum of Rs. 46,50,000. 00 - comprising of Rs. 28,50,000. 00 already deposited by respondent 3 and Rs. 18,00,000. 00 to be deposited by appellants in pursuance of this order a sum of Rs. ( 11 ). Out of the sum of Rs. 46,50,000. 00 - comprising of Rs. 28,50,000. 00 already deposited by respondent 3 and Rs. 18,00,000. 00 to be deposited by appellants in pursuance of this order a sum of Rs. 36,00,000. 00 shall be paid over to the State on account, without prejudice to all its rights and contentions. The balance of Rs. 10,50,000. 00 (Rupees Ten lakhs and fifty thousand) be refunded to respondent 3, Sri Bhim Sen Garg, within one week of the appellants depositing the sum of Rs. 18 lakhs. The resultantposition is that, by way of an interlocutory arrangement, out of Rs 36,00,000. 00 tentatively estimated as the liability of "bhim Sen Garg and party", a sum of Rs. 18,00,000. 00 each would have been contributed by the appellants on the one hand and Sri Bhim Sen Garg on the other. ( 12 ). If respondent 3 succeeds in the writ petition, then the High court will take into account the deposit of Rs. 18,00,000. 00 contributed by respondent 3 and having regard to the nature of the relief that High court may grant in the writ petition issue appropriate directions. In the event respondent 3 is held entitled to the reimbursement of Rs. 18,00,000. 00 or any part thereof, it will be open to the High court to direct the State to repay the same with interest at 15 per cent per annum calculated from the date of payment of Rs. 36,00,000. 00 to the State. If any refund is so ordered by the High court, it shall direct the refund to be made within one month of the date of disposal of the writ petition. ( 13 ). Similarly, the High court will issue appropriate directions at the stage of the final disposal of the writ petition in the case of the appellants also who are stated to be parties to the writ petition. For this purpose the deposit by appellants shall be treated as if made pursuant to directions in the writ petition of Sri Bhim Sen Garg. Whether, in the case of either or both the parties, any such directions for refund are at all necessary or justified would depend upon the nature of relief, if any, the High court might think fit to grant at the stage of final disposal of the writ petition. ( 14 ). Whether, in the case of either or both the parties, any such directions for refund are at all necessary or justified would depend upon the nature of relief, if any, the High court might think fit to grant at the stage of final disposal of the writ petition. ( 14 ). However, if the appellants fail to make the deposit of Rs 18,00,000. 00 as directed, the consequential directions in that behalf become infructuous and it will be unnecessary for the High court to examine and implement the consequential directions which are dependent on and flow from the deposit by appellants as envisaged in this order. ( 15 ). This order disposes of the interlocutory wrangles between the parties, both in the suit and in the writ petition. Nothing that we have said shall effect the merits of the said proceedings. This order would not also affect the right of the State to proceed against the other co- licensees. ( 16 ). It was also mentioned to us that in addition to attachment of the properties of respondent 3, the State had also attached in the hands of tenants of respondent 3 the rents of certain buildings owned by respondent 3. It is appropriate that if the State is paid Rs. 36,00,000. 00 as contemplated in this order, further recoveries towards the dues claimed, by way of attachment of the rents or otherwise, should be stopped during the pendency of the writ petition. Therefore, if Rs. 36,00,000. 00 are so paid to government in terms of this order the attachments of the rents shall be lifted and rents already attached and collected shall also be refunded to respondent 3 within one month from the payment to government of the said sum of Rs. 36,00,000. 00. ( 17 ). However,. the subsisting attachments of the properties of the defaulters shall continue and this order shall not affect the position. ( 18 ). Appeal disposed of accordingly. No costs.