ORDER: The civil revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. Kuzhithurai, allowing the application filed by the respondent herein in I.A.No.112 of 1999 in O.S.No.11 of 1999 on his file. The revision petitioner has filed the said suit before the lower Court under the provisions of O.35, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure as an interpleader suit as according to the revision petitioner there was dispute regarding the ownership of the amounts due from it among the defendants in the suit. 2. In the plaint it is alleged that a sum of Rs.23,21,760 is the total amount due under the plaint schedule deposit amount. 3. The second defendant has filed a written statement and according to the second defendant, the other defendants are unnecessarily impleaded in the suit to raise a vexatious dispute and that the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. He filed an application of a direction to the plaintiff/revision petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.4,86,809 purporting to be the interest due on the deposits during the period 17.3.1998 (the date of the suit) till 8.2.1999 (the date of deposit of the amount mentioned in the plaint). 4. The revision petitioner resisted the said application contending that it was not liable to pay the said amount, that the respondent herein had no locus standi to file the application and that even if any amount was due from it towards interest on the plaint transaction, the rightful claimant would alone be competent to claim such amount from it. The counter further alleged that the deposit already made by it had been accepted by the court; the defendants had also entered appearance and it could be dismissed from the suit. 5. The learned Subordinate Judge on 5.10.1999 made a conditional order directing deposit of the said amount on or before 26.10.1999, failing which the suit would be decided against the revision petitioner and that the petitioner would be liable to pay the cost of the petition to the respondent herein. Aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed. 6. In the order of the learned Subordinate Judge it is stated that the plaintiff has not averred that after 17.3.1998 till the filing of the suit 21.12.1998 it had paid the interest due on the amounts specified in the accounts Exs.A-1 and A-2. 7. Aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed. 6. In the order of the learned Subordinate Judge it is stated that the plaintiff has not averred that after 17.3.1998 till the filing of the suit 21.12.1998 it had paid the interest due on the amounts specified in the accounts Exs.A-1 and A-2. 7. Mr.Ananthakrishnan Nair, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, submitted that the learned Subordinate Judge was in error of jurisdiction in passing such an order and that such an order could not be passed in an interpleader suit and the interpleader suit should have been confined to what the plaintiff had admitted as due from it and the learned Subordinate Judge had travelled beyond the scope of O.35, Rule 1 and Sec.88 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Inuganti Sobhanadrirao and another v. Muthangi Jaggayya and others, A.I.R. 1966 A.P. 92. 8. Mr.Sreekumaran Nair, learned counsel for the respondent, contended that in as much as the revision petitioner was due to pay the interest on the amount in deposit with it, the lower appellate court was perfectly justified in directing the revision petitioner to pay the interest due on the deposits with it and that there was no error of jurisdiction warranting interference under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. A reading of the provisions of Sec.88 and O.35 would clearly show that the court does not have jurisdiction to travel beyond what has been admitted by the plaintiff as due from him/her or it. The court cannot direct any further payment or investigate into any question relating to the transaction alleged between the parties. 10. According to the petitioner, only the amount admitted in the plaint is due from it. The court is called upon to find out as to the person among the defendants as to who is entitled to the same. Requiring the plaintiff to make any further payment is outside the scope of the provisions. May be there are other amounts due from the plaintiff relating to the same transaction payable with some interest as claimed in the present case. But that by itself will not clothe the court with powers to direct payment of such amounts. Requiring the plaintiff to make any further payment is outside the scope of the provisions. May be there are other amounts due from the plaintiff relating to the same transaction payable with some interest as claimed in the present case. But that by itself will not clothe the court with powers to direct payment of such amounts. That is a matter to be decided in a properly constituted proceedings by the person who is decided by the court to be entitled to the amount alleged to be due. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court relied on by Mr.Ananthakrishnan Nair is directly on the point. In paragraph 17 of the said judgment it is stated as follows: “17. Sec.88, C.P.C. also indicates that an interpleader’s suit may be instituted” for the purpose of obtaining a decision as to the person to whom the payment or delivery shall be made and of obtaining indemnity for himself. “ No doubt, the section requires that the plaintiff must be ready to pay or deliver the debt, sum of money or other property, moveable or immoveable, to the rightful claimant. But this can only mean that the plaintiff must be ready to pay, in the case of a debt, the amount, which he admits to be due and payable. The language of the section does not indicate that the plaintiff in an interpleader suit, shall admit in its entirety the claim against him. To the extent the plaintiff admits his liability, he may ask that the rival claimants interplead.” 11. Thus the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. Whatever amounts are further alleged to be due from the revision petitioner, the person ultimately found to be entitled to claim is to take separate proceedings. The civil revision petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the stay petition C.M.P.No.1343 of 2000 is closed.