ORDER 8.10.2001 — This is an application filed by the respondent-owner to permit him to withdraw 50% of decretal amount which has been deposited amounting to Rs. 16,67,703/- without furnishing any security. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-State has, however, strongly resisted such prayer on the ground that such deposit is made only by way of security by the State Government and not in discharge of the decree. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1975 (Superintendent of Central Excise and others v. Somabhai Ranchhodhbhai Patel). Paragraphs 2 and 17 of which are quoted below : Para - 2 - The order dated 21st December, 1999 is the sub¬ject matter of challenge in the Special Leave Petition. While issuing notice in the petition on 27th March, 2000, this Court directed that the notice shall state that the matter may be disposed of at the SLP stage by varying the order under challenge so that withdrawal of the entire amount is permitted only against surety and withdrawal of 50% amount with surety was stayed. The order reads : “Issue notice. Notice shall state that the matter may be disposed of at the S.L.P. stage by varying the order under chal¬lenge so that withdrawal of the entire amount is permitted only against security. Pending further orders, the order under challenge is stated to the extent that it permits the respondent to withdraw fifty percent of the amount without furnishing security”. Para - 17 - In the special leave petition we grant leave. We feel it appropriate to make absolute the order as we had proposed in Order dated 27th March, 2000. It is, therefore, ordered ac¬cordingly and, thus, the order of the High Court under challenge is modified and it is directed that the entire amount would be withdrawn only against furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The contempt petitions and appeal are disposed of accordingly. Therefore, in that view of the matter, we hereby hold that such deposit would not be allowed to be withdrawn without furnishing security. But at the same time, since a heavy amount of Rs. 16,67,703/- was furnish towards security, both the parties shall lose interest. Therefore, we direct the Executing Court (Civil Judge, Sr. Therefore, in that view of the matter, we hereby hold that such deposit would not be allowed to be withdrawn without furnishing security. But at the same time, since a heavy amount of Rs. 16,67,703/- was furnish towards security, both the parties shall lose interest. Therefore, we direct the Executing Court (Civil Judge, Sr. Division), Bhawanipatna in Execution Case No. 1 of 2000 to put the said amount in any nationalised bank prefera¬bly State Bank of India in a short term deposit to be renewed from time to time till disposal of the First Appeal. With the above observation the application for permission to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited is dismissed. The Misc. Case is disposed of. Petition dismissed.