JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. Mr.S.S.Naganand, learned Senior counsel for Mr.P.K.Shrikara, learned counsel for petitioner No.1. Mr.G.Krishna Murthy, learned Senior counsel for Mr.Ganapathi Hegde, learned counsel for petitioner Nos.2 and 13. Mr.Dhyan Chinappa, learned Senior counsel along with Ms.Sanjana Rao, learned counsel for Mr.Sundar Raman, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Dharmendra Chatur, learned counsel for Mrs.Nalina Mayegowda, learned counsel for caveator respondent No.6. Mr.Shrishail Navalgund, learned counsel for Official Liquidator learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 16.07.2016 passed by the Trial Court by which application preferred by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondents to transfer a sum of Rs.651,15,61,312/-, which has been deposited in the account of petitioners for appropriation towards dues payable by respondent Nos.4 to 6. In order to appreciate petitioners challenge to the impugned order, few facts need mention, which are stated infra: 2. The State Bank of India and other Banks advanced various working capital and other facilities in favour of Kingfisher Airlines Limited, between the period from 2005-2010. In 2008, United Breweries Holdings Ltd., had 31,47,985 shares in United Spirites Ltd., and 5,91,50,000 shares in Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. The United Breweries Holdings Ltd., pledged the aforesaid shares in favour of the IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd., viz., respondent No.1. The Kingfisher Finvest India Ltd., was holding 17,89,410 shares in United Spirits Ltd., and had pledged in favour of the IDBI Trusteeship services Ltd., on behalf of ICICI Bank. The lenders Bank formed a consortium and restructure the loans / facilities advanced to the Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., by consolidating the facilities and entering into a Master Debt Recast Agreement (MDRA) and other agreements on 21.12.2010. Thereafter, on the same day a Release Of Residual Interest Agreement was executed between IDBI Trusteeship Services viz., respondent No.1 and SBICAP Trustee Co. Ltd., viz., the petitioner No.1, the Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. viz., respondent No.4, the United Breweries Holdings Ltd., viz., respondent No.5 and Kingfisher Finvest India Ltd., viz., respondent No.6 creating a residual interest in the pledged shares in respect in favour of the Lenders Bank. On 21.12.2010, itself Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., United Breweries Holdings Limited and Kingfisher Finvest India Ltd., executed a Residual Interest Undertaking in favour of petitioner No.1. On 21.12.2010, itself Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., United Breweries Holdings Limited and Kingfisher Finvest India Ltd., executed a Residual Interest Undertaking in favour of petitioner No.1. Thus, by novation and transfer, the repayment obligation of Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., viz., respondent No.4 to ICICI Bank along with all related rights were transferred to India Global Competitive Fund viz., respondent No.2 managed by SREI Alternative Investment Managers Ltd., viz., respondent No.3 to 27.06.2012. 3. The petitioner No.1 on 25.03.2013 addressed a communication to IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd., informing that an Event Of Default has occurred under the MDRA and called upon them under Clause 4.4(ii) of the Release of Residual Interest Agreement to sell the pledged shares at the best available market price and to ensure that the interest of the Banks under the agreement is not diminished. IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited addressed a letter to the petitioner No.1 intimating that respondent No.2 lender has the absolute discretion to determine the time and manner in which it wishes to enforce the pledge and that IDBI Trusteeship Services is waiting for their instructions. On 16.04.2013, State Bank of India by a communication addressed to respondent No.3 viz., SREI Alternative Investment Management Ltd., asked them to sell the pledged shares. The IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd., and SREI Alternative Investment Managers Ltd., denied the rights of the Banks under the Residual Interest Agreement. Thereupon the petitioner No.1 filed a civil suit viz., O.S.No.25877/2013 and Consortium Lenders against IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. and Others in which inter alia relief of declaration was sought that the Banks are entitled to compel the defendants to immediately sell the pledged shares at the best available market price. The petitioner No.1 also sought a writ of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to sell the pledged shares in the open market at the best available market price. The SREI and IGCF filed their written statements. Thereafter, IDBI filed a memo to adopt the written statements of SREI & IGCF. On 14.06.2014, the petitioner No.1 received a communication from the SREI in which inter alia it was stated that the pledged shares of United Spirits Limited were sold in the market at the market price prevailing on the respective date of the sale and that the surplus sale proceeds would be deposited by the petitioner No.1 as per the directions of the Court. The Bank did not consider the prayer of the petitioner No.1 contained in I.A.3 and therefore, the petitioner No.1 filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.28577/2014 before this Court for grant of interim reliefs in the light of sale of shares of United Spirits Limited held by United Breweries Holdings Ltd. On 19.06.2014, a memo was filed in the aforesaid writ petition on behalf of the IDBI, SREI and IGCF inter alia stating that the sale proceeds from the sale of shares of United Spirits Ltd., was Rs.1341 Cores. It was further stated that after appropriating a sum of Rs.690 Crores, the balance sale proceeds have been invested in the short term interest earning instruments and the balance in the ICICI Bank account as on 18.06.2014 was Rs.15,61,312/-. A Bench of this Court in W.P.No.28577/2014 decided on 20.06.2014 directed IDBI, SREI and IGCF to transfer Rs.651 Crores and the interest accrued in State Bank of Mysore, in the name of the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, which was deposited by them. A Bench of this Court by order dated 14.07.2017 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to deposit the amount as per the earlier order and liberty was granted to the petitioner No.1 to file appropriate application before the Trial Court. The petitioner No.1 thereupon filed I.A.10 seeking release of 651 Crores and shares of Kingfisher Airlines Limited in O.S.No.25877/2013. The Trial Court by impugned order dated 16.07.2016 has rejected the application preferred by the petitioner No.1 on the ground that the defendants have denied the entitlement of the plaintiff for the amount in question and the aforesaid amount is yet to be adjudicated. Therefore, at this stage the prayer made by the petitioner No.1 cannot be granted. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner No.1 submitted that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is cryptic and has been passed in a cavalier manner. It is further submitted that the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the defendants have denied the entitlement of the plaintiff to receive the amount in question is factually incorrect as the aforesaid amount has been admitted by the respondents in para No.16 of their written statement. It is further submitted that the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the defendants have denied the entitlement of the plaintiff to receive the amount in question is factually incorrect as the aforesaid amount has been admitted by the respondents in para No.16 of their written statement. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner No.1 has also invited the attention of this Court to the communication dated 14.06.2014 sent by SREI Alternative Investment Managers Ltd., and has submitted that that even in the aforesaid communication, it has been stated that the surplus sale proceeds only shall be paid and deposited in the manner as directed by the Court. It is also submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the shares were sold and since shares were pledged to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to adjust the amount of the sale proceed on account of the sale of shares towards loan amount availed of by respondent No.4. It is also submitted that the Trial Court grossly erred in holding that the question of maintainability of the proceedings has to be decided as it ought to have appreciated that the application filed by the respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code Of Civil Procedure,1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) was already rejected by the Trial Court by an order dated 07.12.2015. It is also alleged that the impugned order suffers from the vice of non application of mind and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner No.1 further submitted that respondent Nos.1 to 3 in fact have admitted the claim of the petitioners and therefore, the question of adjudication with regard to entitlement and disbursement of the surplus amount, which was payable to the petitioners did not arise before the Trial Court. It is further submitted that the impugned order suffers from legal and factual infirmities and the prayer, which has been sought for by way of an application under Section 151 of the Code does not tantamount to grant of final review. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 submitted that the relief sought in I.A No.10 is the final relief, which was sought by the petitioner in the civil suit, therefore, the same could not have been granted by allowing the I.A. filed by the petitioner No.1. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 submitted that the relief sought in I.A No.10 is the final relief, which was sought by the petitioner in the civil suit, therefore, the same could not have been granted by allowing the I.A. filed by the petitioner No.1. It is further submitted that the liability of the petitioner to pay the amount due and payable to the petitioner No.1 was denied by the respondent No.6. It is also submitted that the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner No.1 in the civil suit cannot be granted in view of Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act,1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The attention of this Court has also been invited to the provisions contained in Order 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. It is further submitted that in view of the subsequent views, the suit has become infructuous. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 while adopting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 has submitted that the amount is required to be deposited with the court and should not be disbursed to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the scope of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with regard to interlocutory orders passed by the subordinate court is extremely limited and in the fact situation of the case, no case is made out by the petitioners invoking the power of superintendence in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that instead of filing an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, the petitioner ought to have filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code. It is also submitted that in respect of Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., and United Breweries Holdings Ltd., and orders of winding up of the company have been passed and an Official Liquidator has been appointed. It is further submitted that the petitioners therefore, are required to approach the Official Liquidator with regard to their claim. 8. It is also submitted that in respect of Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., and United Breweries Holdings Ltd., and orders of winding up of the company have been passed and an Official Liquidator has been appointed. It is further submitted that the petitioners therefore, are required to approach the Official Liquidator with regard to their claim. 8. Learned Senior counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 while inviting the attention of this court to the original reliefs claimed in the plaint submitted that in the plaint initially the relief of declaration was sought that the plaintiffs are entitled to compelling the defendants to immediately sell the pledged shares at the best available market price as well as mandatory injunction directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to sell the schedule A share in the open market on the BSE/MSE market at the best available market price not below Rs.235.068/- per share. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have sold the shares above the price of Rs.235.068/- per share and therefore, the reliefs sought for by the petitioners in the suit had become infructuous on account of efflux of time. It is also submitted that by way of mandamus, subsequently the petitioner has sought for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.651 Crores. The aforesaid relief is the impugned relief, which has been claimed by the petitioner in the suit and the respondents have not admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the issues have to be framed and after adjudication, a decree has to be passed by the Trial Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not seeking a decree on admission by way of application under Order XXII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner as the same was filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 and the relief sought for by the petitioner seeking transfer of the amount of Rs.651 Crores, which has been deposited before the Registry of this Court to the petitioner's account could have been granted only after adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit between the parties. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned Senior counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has placed reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in DEORAJ VS. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned Senior counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has placed reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in DEORAJ VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, (2004) 4 SCC 697, STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. VS. RAM SUKHI DEVI, (2005) 9 SCC 733 , P.SUBBA RAO VS. ANDHRA PRADESH ASSOCIATION & ORS.,2008 SCCONLINEDEL 417 AND AIR INDIA LIMITED VS. ADITYA BERI AND OTHERS,2012 SCCONLINEDEL 3014. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 submitted that in respect of the relief sought for by the petitioner for refund of amount of Rs.651 Crores, the petitioners are required to approach the Recovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act,1993 and the suit filed by the petitioner have been rendered infructuous. 10. By way of rejoinder, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner No.1 submitted that the petitioners shall not press relief No.(iii-a) and (iii-b) qua respondent Nos.1 to 3. It is also submitted that the liability of respondent Nos.4 to 6 has been adjudicated in an original application which is filed by the consortium of Banks vide judgment dated 19.01.2017 and the claim of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.6203 crores along with interest at the rate of 11.5% p.a. has been decreed. It is further submitted that the petitioners are secured creditors and are ready and willing to give such undertaking as may be directed by this Court. Lastly, it is urged that this Court should mould the relief in view of the subsequent development which has been taken place during the pendency of the petitions. 11. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the sides and have perused the record. Admittedly, by a judgment dated 19.01.2017, the Debt Recovery Tribunal has decreed the claim of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.6203 Crores against respondent Nos.4 to 6 along with interest at the rate of 11.5% p.a. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.1 is a trustee for the benefit of respondent No.2 whereas respondent No.3 is the manager of the asset. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner No.1 has stated that the petitioner shall not seek the relief qua respondent Nos.1 to 3 as contained in prayer clause (iiia) and (iii-b) of the claim in the civil suit. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner No.1 has stated that the petitioner shall not seek the relief qua respondent Nos.1 to 3 as contained in prayer clause (iiia) and (iii-b) of the claim in the civil suit. It is also pertinent to mention here that in paragraph 16 of the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, it has been averred on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the pledgee namely defendant No.3 has an absolute right to enforce the pledge at any time that it deems fit and appropriate. The plaintiffs can make a claim only in the event that defendant No.3 exercises its rights over the pledged shares and there is surplus left out after satisfying all the claims of defendant No.3. In other words, defendant Nos.1 to 3 have admitted the claim of the petitioner. Similar admission has been made in communication dated 14.06.2014 sent on behalf of the respondent No.2 which is addressed to petitioner No.1. 12. It is well settled in law that Court in order to do justice can mould the relief and can grant an order even in terms as not prayed for. The concept of grant of injunction is also required to be seen in the light as to what could be the loss suffered on account of an injury by non grant of such an injunction. [SEE: SKYLINE EDUCATION INSTITUTE (INDIA) P LTD., VS. S.L.VASWANI, (2010) 2 SCC 142 AND A.C.MUTHAIAH VS. BOARD OF CONTROL OF CRICKET IN INDIA, (2011) 6 SCC 617 ]. In fact, the claim of the petitioners has not been disputed by respondent Nos.1 to 3. In the event the plaintiffs' suit fails, the plaintiffs shall have to return the amount in question to defendant Nos.4 to 6. However, in view of the subsequent event namely the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal against defendant Nos. 1 to 6, admittedly the petitioners have to recover a sum of Rs.6203 Crores from the respondent Nos.4 to 6. Section 28(4) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act,1993, provides that recovery officer may apply to the Court in whose custody there is money belonging to the defendant for payment to him of the entire amount of such money, or if it is more than the amount of debt due an amount sufficient to discharge the amount of debt so due. In the instant case, admittedly the amount which is in deposit with the Registrar General of this Court is more than the amount of debt. The aforesaid amount is a public money and therefore, in view of the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal prima facie the petitioners are entitled to receive the amount by protecting the interest of the respondent Nos.4 to 6. 13. Therefore, in view of the subsequent events which have taken place during the hearing of this writ petition, the impugned order dated 16.07.2016 passed by the Trial Court is hereby quashed and set aside and the recovery officer is directed to take an action for recovery of the amount which has been deposited by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the Registrar General of this Court in terms of Section 28(4) of the Act. In view of the submission made on instructions of the parties, by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, prays that clause (iii-a) and (iii-b) be deleted. In view of aforesaid submission it is directed that petitioners shall file an application for deletion of aforesaid reliefs. Thereupon trial court shall allow the application and shall delete aforesaid prayers. Needless to state that the petitioners shall furnish an undertaking before the Registrar General of this Court to the satisfaction of the Registrar General that in the event of their failure in the suit, they shall restitute the aforesaid amount to the respondent Nos.4 to 6. Needless to state that in case the recovery officer approaches the Registrar General of this Court for recovery of the amount, suitable action on the aforesaid communication shall be taken in accordance with law by the Registrar General. So far as submission made by learned counsel for the Official Liquidator that in fact the amount lying in deposit with the Registrar General of this Court should be handed over to him is concerned, suffice it to say that admittedly the petitioners are secured creditors and therefore, have a priority towards the amount in question which are due to them. [SEE: RANA GIRDERS VS. UNION OF INDIA, (2013) 10 SCC 746 ]. Therefore, the amount in question cannot be directed to be handed over to the Official Liquidator. With the aforesaid directions, the petitions are disposed of.