ORDER : The respondent/plaintiff originally laid the suit for injunction against the revision petitioner / defendant. It is found that the said suit, after contest, had been dismissed. On appeal to the High Court, it is noted that the High Court had remitted the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh disposal. Pursuant to the same, it is found that the plaintiff has amended the plaint by including the relief of declaration also and thereafter, the parties went for trial and ultimately, the suit laid by the plaintiff had come to be dismissed by the Trial Court. The appeal preferred by it also ended in dismissal. Challenging the Judgments and Decrees of the Courts below, it is seen that the plaintiff had also preferred S.A.No.950 of 1992. 2. During the course of the second appeal proceedings, it is found that the plaintiff had sought for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with its possession and enjoyment of the suit properties till the disposal of the second appeal on the footing that it had been granted the order of injunction during the pendency of the suit before the Trial Court and further, according to it, inasmuch it has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, according to the plaintiff, during the pendency of the second appeal, if no injunction is granted and the plaintiff is dispossessed from the suit properties, it would be put to irreparable loss and hardship and also the second appeal would become infructuous and therefore, considering the above circumstances, it is contended and prayed that the Court should order the relief of injunction sought for by the plaintiff in the miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.No.8371 of 1993) filed in the second appeal. Per contra, it is noted that the defendant contended that all along the suit properties had been in his possession and enjoyment and the plaintiff had never in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and therefore, the plaintiff having lost its case in both the Courts below, it was contended that it should not be granted the relief sought for and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the miscellaneous petition. 3. 3. The High Court, considering the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties in the matter, noted that the plaintiff had the benefit of injunction during the course of trial and also during the course of first appellate stage and therefore, holding that inasmuch as the plaintiff had prima facie established to be in possession of the suit properties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, proceeded to accept its case and accordingly held that its possession should be protected till the disposal of the second appeal, however, also considering the totality of the circumstances, passed a conditional order in the miscellaneous petition ordering the injunction sought for by the plaintiff restraining the defendant from interfering with its possession and enjoyment of the suit properties on condition that the plaintiff deposits Rs.40,000/- on or before 01.05.1993 and continues to deposit at the same rate on the First of May of every succeeding years, failing which the injunction will be vacated automatically. Further direction was also given to the Trial Court that on such deposit by the plaintiff, the Trial Court should invest the amount in anyone of the Nationalized Banks in cumulative deposit initially for a period of three years. 4. Now, it is seen that the second appeal preferred by the plaintiff had come to be dismissed on 04.03.2004. Following the same, it is found that the defendant moved an application before the Court below in E.A.No.858 of 2005 for withdrawal of the amount lying in the Court deposit claiming that he is entitled to receive the same inasmuch as the second appeal had been dismissed. It is found that the plaintiff had also moved the Trial Court seeking permission to withdraw the said amount in E.A.No.995 of 2005 contending that the interim order had been passed by the High Court in the second appeal only to safeguard its interest and accordingly, pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court, it had deposited the amount and in such view of the matter, according to the plaintiff, it is entitled to withdraw the same and prayed for appropriate orders. 5. 5. The Court below, on a consideration of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties for claiming withdrawal of the amount lying in the Court deposit in their favour, held that it is only the plaintiff, who is entitled to receive the amount and the defendant is not entitled to get the amount and accordingly dismissed the application preferred by the defendant and allowed the application preferred by the plaintiff. Challenging the above said orders, it is found that the defendant has preferred the present civil revision petitions. 6. The learned counsel for the respective parties reiterated the same contentions as put forth before the Court below claiming that they are entitled to withdraw the amount lying in the Court deposit. 7. As seen from the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties, right from the inception of the lis, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that it has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Per contra, it is found that the defendant has taken a specific stand that it is he, who is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and that the plaintiff had never been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. It is also found that both the Courts below had held that the plaintiff has failed to establish that it is in legal possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and that it is only the defendant, who has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties all along, accordingly, it is found that the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court holding so and finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish its title to the suit properties as put forth by it and also having negatived its plea as regards the case of adverse possession also, it is found that the Courts below had rejected the lis preferred by the plaintiff. 8. Challenging the same, it is found that the plaintiff had preferred the second appeal as adverted to above. 8. Challenging the same, it is found that the plaintiff had preferred the second appeal as adverted to above. Pending second appeal, in the miscellaneous petition seeking for the relief of injunction preferred by the plaintiff, the High Court considering the fact that the plaintiff had the benefit of injunction throughout during both the trial as well as the appellate stage and therefore, holding that prima facie, it seems to appear that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the properties, accordingly, accepted its case prima facie and granted the relief of injunction sought for by it, however, in order to ensure that the request of the plaintiff is genuine, had passed a conditional order directing it to deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- every year as adverted to above. Therefore, it is noted that inasmuch as the High Court had considering the totality of the circumstances and finding that the plaintiff had the benefit of injunction throughout and also appearing to be in possession of the properties prima facie granted the relief of injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff. In the above said miscellaneous petition, the High Court has not held that the defendant is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as such, therefore, it is found that only on the basis of the prima facie considerations and to ensure that the plaintiff is serious and genuine in the prosecution of the second appeal, the conditional order had been passed in the miscellaneous petition granting the relief sought for by the plaintiff. 9. The High Court in the second appeal has held that the plaintiff as found by the Courts below had failed to establish the title to the suit properties as put forth by it and accordingly, determined that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain the relief of declaration as prayed for. Similarly, the High Court has also discountenanced the relief sought for by the plaintiff that it had prescribed its title to the suit properties by way of adverse possession. The High Court had also concurred with the findings of the Courts below that there is ample evidence adduced on the part of the defendant that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and accordingly, dismissed the second appeal preferred by the plaintiff. 10. The High Court had also concurred with the findings of the Courts below that there is ample evidence adduced on the part of the defendant that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and accordingly, dismissed the second appeal preferred by the plaintiff. 10. In the light of the above discussions, when it is found that all along the Trial Court, First Appellate Court as well as the High Court had found and determined that it is only the defendant, who had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the plaintiff had never been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, it could be seen that the conditional order that had been passed by the High Court during the course of second appeal is only on the basis of the prima facie case projected by the plaintiff and not on any other factor, particularly, not by determining that defendant is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. However, in order to ensure that the plaintiff is serious and genuine in seeking the request of injunction, the High Court had passed the conditional order directing it to pay certain amounts every year. Therefore, all the Courts having found that the plaintiff had never been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and it is only the defendant, who had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, it could be seen that the conditional order directing the plaintiff to pay certain amounts would not have been on the basis that inasmuch as the plaintiff is enjoying the suit properties and reaping the benefits from them it is required to deposit certain amounts from the said proceeds. In the High Court, therefore, it is found that the plaintiff had been directed to pay the said amount by way of a conditional order only from its own pocket and the said direction could not have been on the footing that the plaintiff had been deriving income from the suit properties and as such he is to deposit the said amount out of the same as directed by the Court. 11. 11. If that be the case, if really the plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties illegally, it is found that the defendant while contesting the suit laid by the plaintiff would have sought for necessary relief against the plaintiff, particularly, the claim of mesne profits from it for its illegal possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by way of a counter claim. However, the defendant has not claimed any mesne profits as such from the plaintiff and on the other hand, he had been contending throughout that it is he, who had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the plaintiff at no point of time, been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. 12. In the light of the above position, considering the essence of the order passed by the High Court in the miscellaneous petition during the course of appeal, it is found that inasmuch as the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and also had the benefit of injunction throughout both during the trial as well as the first appeal stage, the High Court was inclined to pass a conditional order and the same could not be interpreted as if the said order directing the plaintiff to pay the amount is out of the income derived by the plaintiff from the suit properties and as such the plaintiff is bound to deposit the same in the Court. Thus, it is found that the conditional order of payment made by the High Court is only to ensure that the plaintiff is serious in his case during the course of the second appeal. Accordingly, it is found that the plaintiff had also obeyed the conditional order and deposited the amount as directed. 13. However, ultimately the second appeal had been dismissed. At the stage of the dismissal of the second appeal, no interim order has been passed by the High Court as regards the fate of the amount lying in the Court deposit as directed by it during the course of the second appeal. 14. 13. However, ultimately the second appeal had been dismissed. At the stage of the dismissal of the second appeal, no interim order has been passed by the High Court as regards the fate of the amount lying in the Court deposit as directed by it during the course of the second appeal. 14. Accordingly, it is found that apropos of applications preferred by the respective parties before the Court below claiming that they are entitled to withdraw the amount, however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the above discussions, it is found that the Court below had rightly held that it is only the plaintiff, who is entitled to withdraw the amount and that the defendant is not entitled to withdraw the amount lying in the Court deposit. Hence, the impugned orders do not warrant any interference in the civil revision petitions and the same are confirmed. 15. Resultantly, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.