ORDER : B. Veerappa, J. This is a fourth defendant's writ petition against the order dated 17-12-2016 allowing the IA No. 4 in part made in O.S. No. 8778 of 2015 directing the fourth defendant to deposit the arrears of rent amount before the Court without fail. 2. Smt. B.P. Roopa-the fourth respondent, who is the plaintiff 1 in the Trial Court, has filed the suit for partition and separate possession contending that all the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3. The defendants 1 to 3 filed written statement, denied the plaint averments and contended that all the joint family properties are not included in the suit. During the pendency of the proceedings, the defendants 1 to 3 filed application for direction to the fourth defendant directing to pay and deposit the entire arrears of rent before the Trial Court. That application came to be rejected by the Trial Court on 30-5-2016. It was the subject-matter of the writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 33690 of 2016. After hearing both the parties, this Court by an order dated 18-8-2016 directed the second respondent therein who is the present petitioner herein to deposit the arrears of the rent before the Trial Court from August 2015 till it vacates the premises in question at the agreed rate of rent. 3. In spite of the orders passed by this Court stated supra, the present petitioner-fourth defendant filed an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before the Trial Court to permit him to deposit the arrears of rent amount after adjusting the security deposit already paid before handing over the keys before the Court. The said application was resisted by the defendants 1 to 3 as well as the plaintiff. After hearing both the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 17-12-2016 on IA No.4 partly allowed the application and directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent due by 5-1-2017 without fail. Hence the preset petition is filed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 5. Sri B. Chethan, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court directing the petitioner to deposit entire arrears of rent due is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 5. Sri B. Chethan, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court directing the petitioner to deposit entire arrears of rent due is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the suit is filed for partition and separate possession. In the said proceedings, without due process of law and against the recognised principle, respondents are making one after the other applications in the suit for their convenience to recover arrears of rent. Though the respondents are liable to file a separate suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent, with mala fide intention filed the suit for partition, which is not maintainable, therefore, the question of depositing arrears of rent as directed by the Trial Court, does not arise. He further contended that, when the very suit is not maintainable, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court directing the fourth defendant to deposit the arrears of rent is without any basis. He also contended that as per the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 33690 of 2016, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a separate application before the Trial Court for refund of the amount towards security deposit, the present application is filed. The Trial Court ought to have adjusted the amount in security deposit. Therefore, he sought to quash the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-Sri Gangadharappa, sought to justify the impugned order and contended that this Court while disposing off the writ petition in W.P. No. 33690 of 2016 on 18-8-2016, directed the present petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent before the Trial Court from August 2015 till it vacates the premises in question at the agreed rate of the rent and the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 21,63,000/-. He further submits that the fourth defendant vacated the premises on 6th December, 2016 and the same is recorded by the Trial Court in the order sheet. In spite of the direction issued by this Court, the present petitioner in utter violation of the order passed by this Court, filed a memo of calculation. 21,63,000/-. He further submits that the fourth defendant vacated the premises on 6th December, 2016 and the same is recorded by the Trial Court in the order sheet. In spite of the direction issued by this Court, the present petitioner in utter violation of the order passed by this Court, filed a memo of calculation. Therefore, he submits that present petitioner filed a memo before the Trial Court calculating the security deposit, the arrears of rent due only as Rs. 7,50,000/- which is erroneous, contrary to the direction of this Court and prays for dismissal of the petition. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is: "Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in directing the petitioner to pay the entire arrears of rent due is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case?" 8. It is an undisputed fact that the matter is pending before the Trial Court. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants 1 to 3 filed application directing the fourth defendant who is the tenant to pay arrears of rent. The said application came to be rejected by the Trial Court on 30-5-2016 before the Court. That was the subject-matter of W.P. No. 33690 of 2016. This Court after hearing both the parties, by an order dated 18-6-2016 considering the arguments including the adjustment of security deposit, directed the second respondent therein/present petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent before the Trial Court from August 2015 till it vacates the premises in question at the agreed rate of rent. 9. It is also not in dispute that the present petitioner vacated the schedule premises on 6-12-2016 as can be seen from the order sheet of the Trial Court in O.S. No. 8778 of 2015, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the Caveator respondent 1 and in view of the same, admitted arrears of rent would be Rs. 21,63,200/-. According to Sri Chethan, learned Counsel for the petitioner it comes to only Rs. 20,80,000/-. 10. 21,63,200/-. According to Sri Chethan, learned Counsel for the petitioner it comes to only Rs. 20,80,000/-. 10. This Court while considering the very issue with regard to the payment of arrears of rent made in W.P. No. 33690 of 2016, dated 18-6-2016, specifically directed the present petitioner to pay the rent from August 2015 till it vacates the premises in question at the agreed rate of rent which reads as under: "In the result, I direct the respondent 2 to deposit the arrears of rent with the Trial Court from August 2015 till it vacates the premises in question at the agreed rate of rent. The Trial Court shall decide who is entitled to receive these amounts and how they are to be apportioned on adjudicating the main matter. On the ground that the respondent 2 would have the difficulty of recovering the paid towards security deposit, it cannot be absolved of its liability to pay the rent. At the time of its vacating the premises in question, it can make appropriate application to the Trial Court for the refund of the amounts towards the security deposit. If any further interlocutory orders are required, the parties are at liberty to make appropriate applications to the Trial Court where O.S. No.8778 of 2015 is pending consideration." In spite of the same, unfortunately the present petitioner, in utter violation and in disobedience of the order passed by this Court, filed an application on 10-7-2016 seeking permission to deposit arrears of rent amount before the Trial Court after adjusting the security deposit already paid, filing a false affidavit before the Court and also filing a memo of calculation by the fourth defendant on 23-11-2016 stating that according to him the rent is Rs.19,50,000/- from August 2015 to October 2016. It is not disputed by the petitioner that it has vacated the premises only on 6-12-2016. Accordingly the fourth defendant filed memo of calculation, rent as on August 2015 is Rs.1,30,000/- arrears of rent from August 2015 to October it comes to Rs.1,30,000 x 15 months = Rs.19,50,000/- and security deposit Rs.12,00,000/-, rental arrears comes to Rs.7,50,000/-. The memo filed is in disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 11. Accordingly the fourth defendant filed memo of calculation, rent as on August 2015 is Rs.1,30,000/- arrears of rent from August 2015 to October it comes to Rs.1,30,000 x 15 months = Rs.19,50,000/- and security deposit Rs.12,00,000/-, rental arrears comes to Rs.7,50,000/-. The memo filed is in disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 11. When this Court directed the present petitioner should pay the arrears of rent as on agreed rate from August 2015 till it vacates the premises in question, also observed that the second respondent would have the difficulty of recovering the paid amount towards security deposit, it cannot be absolved of its liability to pay the rent. At the time of vacating the premises in question, it can make appropriate application to the Trial Court for the refund of the amount towards security deposit. Even if any further interlocutory orders are required, the parties are at liberty to make appropriate applications before the Trial Court in the pending suit. In spite of such direction the fourth defendant has filed application for adjustment of security deposit and also filed a memo of calculation, wrongly interpreting the inclusion of the security deposit which is not permissible in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 33690 of 2016. In spite of the direction issued by this Court, he has boldly filed the present application and also the memo of calculation which is contrary to the materials on record. 12. It is also not in dispute that the order passed by this Court on 18-6-2016 in W.P. No. 33690 of 2016 has reached finality. Once the direction issued by this Court has reached finality, either of the parties have no right to meddle with the order or to interpret according to their own whims and fancies. It is nothing but daring raid on the Court, it amounts to interference with the judicial administration of justice which is impermissible. 13. Considering the entire materials on record, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner and directing the petitioner to pay arrears of rent from 15-8-2015 till it vacates the premises in question is in accordance with law. Accordingly, the point raised in this writ petition is answered in affirmative. 13. Considering the entire materials on record, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner and directing the petitioner to pay arrears of rent from 15-8-2015 till it vacates the premises in question is in accordance with law. Accordingly, the point raised in this writ petition is answered in affirmative. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 20,000/- payable by the petitioner to the respondents within four weeks from the date of the receipt the copy of this order.