JUDGMENT 1. - In the suit for specific performance decree was given to the plaintiff. It was directed that he would deposit the sale price within 15 days of the decree. The defendant preferred appeal. On 26.4.1996, interim stay was ordered and execution of the decree dated 27.3.1996 was stayed. Thereafter plaintiff-respondent filed application on 25.7.1996 praying for vacation of stay. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that stay should not be vacated an the deposited by the respondent should not be returned to him and at the most it may directed that the amount be kept in fixed deposit account. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the appeal is not likely to be disposed of in near future and his client should not be deprived of the fruits of the money and it has been the practice of this Court to allow the purchaser to withdraw his amount and redeposit the same in case the appeal of the appellant fails. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that after the stay order dated 26.4.1996, application refund of the amount was moved before the trial Court and the Court vide order dated 12.9.1996 allowed the plaintiffs to withdraw the amount deposited by them. 4. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to order the release of the amount since this Court was seized of the matter. 5. I have given the matter my thoughtful consideration. The plaintiff has deposited a sum of Rs. 12 lacs in compliance with the directions given in the decree. Appeal of the defendant has been admitted and it cannot be denied that the appeal is not likely to be disposed of in near future. No useful purpose is likely to be served, if the amount is kept in the Court. Also the appellant is not likely to be benefited if the amount is kept in fixed deposit account. 6. It has been the practice of this Court to allow the purchaser to withdraw his amount in such matters. It is of course true that after the order of this Court, the trial Court should not have entertained the matter and ordered the withdrawal of the amount by the plaintiff. 7. 6. It has been the practice of this Court to allow the purchaser to withdraw his amount in such matters. It is of course true that after the order of this Court, the trial Court should not have entertained the matter and ordered the withdrawal of the amount by the plaintiff. 7. However, now it is directed by this Court that the plaintiff-respondent shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by him in pursuance of the decree under appeal without prejudice to his rights. Respondent shall furnish an undertaking before withdrawal, in the trial Court to redeposit the amount with a period of 35 days from the date of decision of the appeal in case the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 8. The stay order dated 26.4.1996 shall stand modified as above. The application dated. 25.7.1996 filed by the counsel for the respondent stands disposed of.Order accordingly *******