Judgment :- The civil revision petition is taken up for hearing. 2. The order of the Court below is wholly unsustainable. This Court has directed petitioner herein to withdraw the money by order dated 12.4.1990 in C.M.P.No.3918 The trial Court passed an order in 14.3.1991 directing issue of cheque to the petitioner. the trial court passed a suo motu order on 26.4.1991 cancelling the said direction cheque on the ground that it had received a telegram from the petitioner ’ s advocate S.Mariappan and there is a petition pending in E.A.No.69 of 1991 for change of Neither of the grounds is sufficident to change the direction already given. At any court had no jurisdiction to suo motu pass an order cancelling the direction to issue The earlier direction to issue cheque was made pursuant to the order of this Court the petitioner to withdraw the amount. If the petitioner’s advocate has got a claim as the petitioner, he should have taken appropriate proceedings in a proper forum and appropriate orders preventing the petitioner from withdrawing the amount. In the such orders, it is not open to the Court below to pass a suo motu order of cancellation direction made earlier to issue cheque. 3. Hence, the order of the Court below dated 26.4.1991 made in E.A.No.199 of 1990 aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga, directed to issue cheque to the petitioner immediately for the amount due to the No costs. Petition allowed.