Judgment :- Inveighing the order dated 19.12.2007 passed in the numbered I.A. in M.C.O.P. No. 540 of 2005 by the Principal Sub Court, Erode, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: (i) It appears, in the M.C.O.P. No. 540 of 2005, the matter was settled between the parties and consequently the Tribunal dismissed the MCOP as settled out of Court. Such a procedure itself is unknown to law. Even then that was resorted to by the Tribunal. However, subsequent to such order dated 18.4.2006 the insurance Company deposited the sum of Rs. 40,000/-, in pursuance of the said settlement, in Court and from the typed set of papers what I could understand is that the said amount was invested in the Indian Overseas Bank and the date of maturity is 25.9.2010. (ii) In the meanwhile the mother of the minor filed the interlocutory application for withdrawing the said amount, so as to meet the medical and educational expenses of the minor. However, the lower Court simply returned the said application with the following endorsement: "The amount was invested in a bank. Hence, this petition is returned."(extracted as such) 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been filed on the main ground that the lower Court was not justified in simply returning the application filed by the revision petitioner on the ground that the amount was invested in the bank. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that when the revision petitioner is in need of the said amount, the lower Court was not justified in simply returning it. Ex facie and prima facie it is clear that the lower Court should not have simply dismissed the M.C.O.P. as though it was settled out of Court. An award in commensurate with the settlement should have been passed. 5. Be that as it may. Much water has flown under the bridge. Subsequently, the amount deposited in the Court also was invested in Fixed Deposit. An award in commensurate with the settlement should have been passed. 5. Be that as it may. Much water has flown under the bridge. Subsequently, the amount deposited in the Court also was invested in Fixed Deposit. In such a case once the mother of the guardian prays for return of the amount it is the duty of the Court to number the said application and process it as per law, so to say, the guardian of the minor should be examined by the Court and she should justify the requirement of the minor and whereupon the Court has to pass necessary order taking into account the precedents in this regard. 6. Accordingly, direction is issued to the lower Court to deal with the matter expeditiously and dispose it of within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The civil revision petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.