Judgment M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Appellant/Applicant/Decree Holder has filed the instant Original Side Appeal as against the order, dated 04.12.2013, in A.No.4501 of 2012 in A.No.1005 of 2012 in E.P.No.1036 of 2010, passed by the Learned Single Judge, in dismissing the Application. 2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the order in A.No.4501 of 2012 in A.No.1005 of 2012 in E.P.No.1036 of 2010 [filed by the Appellant/Applicant], on 04.12.2013, has, in paragraph 6, inter alia, observed that '... As per the order passed in A.No.1005 of 2012, a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- was directed to be deposited to the credit of E.P.No.1036 of 2010, and, it is also made clear in that order that the deposit shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings initiated for setting aside the sale of the property of the second respondent and subject to the outcome of the execution proceedings to be initiated by the decree holder for the realization of the decree amount. That order has become final and the same cannot be circumvented by filing this Application, thereby seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the amount. Already amount has been deposited in the Bank, and, it carries interest, and, no prejudice would be caused to the applicant, if the amount is allowed to be kept in the Bank deposit. In the event of success in the Execution Petition, the applicant is entitled to withdraw the amount with accrued interest. Hence, I do not find any reason to allow this Application No.4501 of 2012' and resultantly, dismissed the Application. 3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Applicant, the Learned Single Judge has committed an error, in dismissing A.No.4501 of 2012 in A.No.1005 of 2012 in E.P.No.1036 of 2010, inasmuch as the same is bad in law, probabilities of the case and opposed to equity and principles of natural justice. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Applicant contends that the Learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate a vital fact that the Appellant/Applicant has an Arbitration Award dated 18.01.2002, passed in Arbitration Case No.SK/SFSL/1 of 2000, in its favour against the Respondents therein for a sum of Rs.2,74,54,879/-together with interest at 18% per annum from 28.09.2000 till realization with costs, which has become final and enforceable as it remains unchallenged. 5. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Applicant submits that the amount due to the Appellant/Applicant in terms of the Arbitration Award as on date of filing of the Execution Petition was Rs.7,37,49,353.98 and this amount continues to increase as no amount was received by the Appellant towards the settlement of the Award in question. 6. That apart, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently projects an argument that the Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the prime fact that the substitution of a Bank Guarantee by the Appellant in lieu of the Court Deposit in E.P.No.1036 of 2010 will not cause any prejudice to the Judgment Debtors as the Security continues to remain and indeed, the Bank Guarantee can be enforced by the Respondent in case the Judgment Debtor succeeds in O.S.A.No.20 of 2009 pending before this Court seeking to set aside the sale. 7. Expatiating his contention, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Learned Single Judge had not taken into account a primordial fact that the Appellant is not a party to O.S.A.No.20 of 2009 and even if the sale is set aside the Bank Guarantee that the Appellant/Applicant had undertaken to substitute in lieu of the Court Deposit is sufficient to satisfy the claim of the Judgment Debtor and in any event, an order allowing Application No.4501 of 2012 in A.No.1005 of 2012 in E.P.No.1036 of 2010 would not cause any prejudice to the rights of the Judgment Debtor in any manner whatsoever. 8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant brings it to the notice of this Court that the Appellant had given an undertaking to re-deposit the amount with interest as stipulated by the Hon'ble Court in the event of any order passed against the Appellant in E.P.No.1036 of 2010. 9. Finally, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that if the Appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount lying idle in the Court Deposit by substitution of a Bank Guarantee, that amount can be utilized by the Appellant for its business at the same time the Security for the entire sum withdrawn by the Appellant is still retained in E.P.No.1036 of 2010 by way of the substituted Bank Guarantee. 10. 10. Per contra, it is contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that M/s.Alsa Constructions and Housing Limited were directed to be wound up by the order of this Court in C.P.No.339 of 1999 and that the Official Liquidator was appointed as Liquidator of the Respondent Company and one of the secured creditors viz., Indus Ind Bank brought a property of the Respondent Company, which stood in the name of Altaf Pasha (Respondent herein) for auction and deposited the balance sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- after realising their dues in D.R.C.No.22 of 2006 in O.A.No.1248 of 1999 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal – I, Chennai. 11. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the ex-directors of the M/s.Alsa Constructions and Housing Limited challenged the aforesaid sale before the Company Court as the assets belonged to the Company liquidation and Altaf Pasha, as an aggrieved, preferred O.S.A.No.20 of 2009 before this Court and this Court was pleased to grant an interim injunction restraining M/s.Indus Ind Bank from alienating, encumbering the properties belonging to the Company in liquidation. 12. According to the Learned Counsel for the Respondent, the Appellant/Applicant had filed E.P.No.1036 of 2010 for attachment of Rs.1,00,00,000/- lying in the hands of Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai and the Execution Court had attached the aforesaid sum, through its order dated 02.03.2011. 13. Added further, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent proceeds to state that the Appellant/Decree Holder filed Application No.2250 of 2011 in E.P.No.1036 of 2010 for payment out and the same was dismissed by the Learned Master of this Court on 21.09.2011 and the Appellant, as an affected person, filed A.No.1005 of 2012 against the order passed in A.No.2250 of 2011. The said order of the Learned Master was set aside by this Court on 19.03.2012 and further, a direction was issued to the effect that the amounts lying in Debt Recovery Tribunal be deposited into the credit of E.P.No.1036 of 2010 subject to the outcome of O.S.A.No.20 of 2009 pending before this Court. 14. The said order of the Learned Master was set aside by this Court on 19.03.2012 and further, a direction was issued to the effect that the amounts lying in Debt Recovery Tribunal be deposited into the credit of E.P.No.1036 of 2010 subject to the outcome of O.S.A.No.20 of 2009 pending before this Court. 14. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent contends that in view of the categorical undertaking given by the Appellant that the amounts shall not be utilised until the outcome of the OSA proceedings, the amounts were transferred and in fact, the amounts credited into E.P.No.1036 of 2010 belongs to the Company in liquidation and that the Application No.4501 of 2012 projected by the Appellant is in contravention to their undertaking given and the same cannot be substituted by a Bank Guarantee. 15. During the last leg of his argument, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that a revival scheme was filed before this Court and the same is pending and in fact, in the statement of affairs, the property, from which the sale proceeds were realised and which was credited into the account of E.P.No.1036 of 2010, was shown as the asset of the Company and under these circumstances, the Appellant/Applicant is not to be permitted to withdraw the sums in question. 16. It is not in dispute that this Court, in A.No.1005 of 2012 in E.P.No.1036 of 2010, on 19.03.2012, issued a direction to the effect that a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- attached in pursuance of the order dated 02.03.2011 in E.P.No.1036 of 2010 [lying to the credit of Garnishee/Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal], was to be deposited to the credit of E.P.No.1036 of 2010 on the file of this Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Further, this Court also passed an order in observing that the aforesaid deposit shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings initiated for setting aside the sale of the property of the 2nd Defendant and subject to the outcome of the Execution Proceedings to be initiated by the Decree Holder for realisation of the Decree amount. 17. Besides the above, the Garnishee was also directed to deposit the aforesaid amount by way of Fixed Deposit initially for one year subject to periodical renewal in the name of the Registrar General. 18. 17. Besides the above, the Garnishee was also directed to deposit the aforesaid amount by way of Fixed Deposit initially for one year subject to periodical renewal in the name of the Registrar General. 18. It is to be pointed out that the Order of this Court, in A.No.1005 of 2012 in E.P.No.1036 of 2010, dated 19.03.2012, has become final, conclusive and binding between the inter se parties. 19. At this stage, this Court very relevantly points out that the money lying in Bank Fixed Deposit certainly bears interest. Therefore, it is latently and patently quite clear that the amount lying in Fixed Deposit of the Bank which earns interest would not cause any harm or prejudice to any one of the parties, in the considered opinion of this Court. Ultimately, if the Appellant/Applicant succeeds in E.P.No.1036 of 2010, it is open to it to withdraw the Fixed Deposit sum together with interest, by filing necessary payment out Application, in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. Viewed in that perspective, the order of the Learned Single Judge, in dismissing A.No.4501 of 2012 in A.No.1005 of 2012 in E.P.No.1036 of 2010, dated 04.12.2013, in our considered opinion, does not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality, in the eye of law. Consequently, the Original Side Appeal fails. 20. In the result, the Original Side Appeal is dismissed. No costs.