Judgment Heard Shri Shivan Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri M. Salkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Shri Salkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 waives service. The notice was issued to the respondents that the above petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. None appears for the remaining respondents. 3. The short point for consideration in the above petition is that an application filed by the petitioner for modification of an order of temporary injunction passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Panjim by order dated 9/01/2012 whereby the learned Judge inter alia directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore Fifty Lacs only) before the Court be modified to the extent that instead of depositing the amount the petitioner would furnish a Bank Guarantee for the said amount came to be dismissed. 4. The learned Judge by the impugned order dated 30/06/2012 has dismissed the said application essentially on the ground that the contentions of the petitioner do not come within the provisions of Order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. 5. Shri Shivan Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner only desires to secure the amount directed to be deposited by the learned Judge whilst disposing of the application for temporary injunction by a Bank Guarantee of a Nationalized Bank. The learned Counsel further pointed out that furnishing such Bank Guarantee does not in any way affect the rights of the respondents as ultimately in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioners are liable to pay the said amount such amount should be available for disbursement. The learned Counsel further submitted that the said condition is imposed to disclose the bonafides and the capacity of the petitioner to have such an amount. The learned Counsel further pointed out that it is well known that even furnishing a Bank Guarantee would entail that the petitioner has liquidity who shows them capacity to hold such amount. The learned Counsel has further taken me through the impugned order and pointed out that the learned Judge has misconstrued the provisions of law and has erroneously dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 6. The learned Counsel has further taken me through the impugned order and pointed out that the learned Judge has misconstrued the provisions of law and has erroneously dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 6. Shri Salkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 initially supported the impugned order, but however, the learned Counsel does not dispute that furnishing a Bank Guarantee would otherwise also show the capacity of the petitioner to hold such sum of money. It is the contention of Shri Salkar, learned Counsel that it is preferable that the petitioner should be directed to deposit the said amount so that in case the petitioner is liable to pay such amount the respondents would also be entitled to recover the bank rate of interest as the amount would be invested in Fixed Deposit of a Nationalized Bank. The learned Counsel further pointed out that furnishing such Bank Guarantee would prejudice the respondent no.1 as the respondent would not in such circumstances be entitled to claim such interest if they are so entitled at the time of the disposal of the suit. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that the petition be dismissed. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and have also gone through the records. On perusal of Order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, one finds that on account of some specific circumstances the parties can seek for modification of an order of injunction. In the present case, considering the circumstances of the petitioner who found it appropriate to file an application to modify the condition to the effect that instead of depositing the amount before the Court the petitioner would furnish a Bank Guarantee of a Nationalized Bank, such relief can very well be granted by the Court under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code and in any event the Court can exercise powers under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code in the interest of justice. Apart from that, the endeavour of the Court should be to ensure that the amount as directed to be deposited is available to the Court for disbursement at the time of the final disposal of the suit. 8. Apart from that, the endeavour of the Court should be to ensure that the amount as directed to be deposited is available to the Court for disbursement at the time of the final disposal of the suit. 8. Considering the contention of respondent no.1 it would be appropriate that the Bank Guarantee of a Nationalized Bank which the petitioner wants to substitute to the condition to deposit the said sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore Fifty Lacs only) would also disclose that in case the Bank Guarantee is invoked the amount of the Bank Guarantee would be paid along with interest payable on Fixed Deposits of Nationalized Bank. Thus, subject to said condition that the amount would be secured by Bank Guarantee together with interest payable on Fixed Deposit with Nationalized Bank, I find that the condition imposed whilst disposing of the temporary injunction application by order dated 9/01/2012 can be modified. 9. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to Bank Guarantee also disclosing that the amount would be paid along with interest payable on Fixed Deposit of the Nationalized Bank. 10. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.