( 1 ) HEARD Sri B. Dayal learned counsel appearing for Meerut Development Authority, Meerut and Sri Anil Sharma learned counsel appearing for the respondent. ( 2 ) THIS is a recall application dated 1. 10. 2008 to recall the order dated 18. 4. 2008 passed by this Court directing the applicant to deposit half of the total amount of interest mentioned in the order as indicated by the counsel for the development authority. ( 3 ) IT appears that the Reference Court by order dated 12. 3. 2007 has directed that an amount of Rs. 7,21,232. 61 on account of interest and other claims be paid within a period of one month. On 18. 4. 2008, learned counsel for the development authority stated that the matter was urgent and some order be passed otherwise there is an apprehension that the bank account of the development authority may be attached. The figure mentioned in the reference order by the court below was indicated by the learned counsel for the applicant and in such situation it was directed that half of the total amount directed by the reference court be deposited and for the rest of the amount the development authority was directed to furnish the security. It was further indicated that if this order is complied with, no further action shall be taken against the development authority. It appears that development authority was not satisfied with the order, though this order was passed after indicating the figure by the development authority, has filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court on the ground that the court itself without verifying the fact has directed to deposit the said amount. On the basis of false averments made before the Apex Court by the development authority, the Apex Court vide its order dated 28. 7. 2008 has passed the following orders:- "we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, we grant liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate application before the High Court to recall the impugned order as learned counsel for the petitioner submits, on instruction, that the High Court was wrong in calculating the decretal amount. " ( 4 ) AS the Apex Court, on the basis of wrong averments made by the development authority, has passed the aforesaid order, as such the present application has been filed. " ( 4 ) AS the Apex Court, on the basis of wrong averments made by the development authority, has passed the aforesaid order, as such the present application has been filed. ( 5 ) IT is made clear that the figure indicated in the order dated 18. 4. 2008 was mentioned by the learned counsel for the development authority on the date when the order was passed. The Court not on suo moto had fixed the amount. Therefore, it clearly appears that the development authority on the wrong advice has filed a false affidavit before the Apex Court and, therefore, the Apex Court has given a liberty otherwise if correct facts would have been brought to the notice of the Apex Court, the order for making application for recall of the said order should not have been granted. ( 6 ) THE figure mentioned in the order is by way of an interim measure. The final adjudication has not been made. If according to Mr. B. Dayal, Advocate appearing for the development authority, Reference Court has miscalculated the amount and has directed to deposit a wrong amount it should not have been directed. This can only be decided at the time of final adjudication. Admittedly it is a money decree and no blanket interim order should be granted. It is well settled law. Therefore, in that circumstances this Court has directed to deposit 50% of the figure indicated by the development authority. ( 7 ) IN such situation, I am of the view that this recall application is misconceived and it is hereby dismissed. .