ORDER : M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. 1. This application is filed to vacate the interim order granted on 10.03.2015 in AS. MP. No. 351 of 2015 in AS. No. 131 of 2015. 2. Heard Sri S. Ravi, Senior Counsel for Sri M. Ratna Reddy, counsel for the applicant herein and the learned Advocate General appearing for respondents in this application. 3. The appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dt. 01.04.2014 in OS. No. 6 of 201.2 of the IX Additional District Judge, Wanaparthy in a suit filed by the applicant in this application against the respondents for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2233.49 lakhs. 4. After contest, the following decree was passed: "1. That the plaintiff is entitled for principal amount of Rs. 12,58,08,602/- with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of final bill to the date of the suit i.e., from 15-2-2006 to 1.8-02-201.0 i.e. (38) months. 2. The plaintiff is entitled for Rs. 5,97,59,085/- towards 15% interest amount for a period of (38) months i.e. from 15-12-2006 to 18-02-2010. 3. The plaintiff is also entitled to interest amount @ 12% per annum on principal amount of Rs. 12,58,08,602/- from the date of the suit i.e. 18-02-2010 to the date of passing of the decree i.e. 1-4-2014 (49) months which comes to Rs. 6,16,46,214/-. 4. The plaintiff is also entitled to interest amount @ 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 12,58,08,602/- from the date of Decree i.e., from 1-4-2014 till the date of realization. 5. The plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rs. 92,72,701/- towards proportionate costs to be recovered from the defendants." 5. In A.S. M.P. No. 351 of 2015 this Court granted interim stay of execution of the judgment and decree dt. 01.04.2014 in O.S. No. 6 of 2012 of the Court below. 6. The applicant herein seeks to vacate the said order. 7. The learned Advocate General appearing for respondents stated that the agreement was between a partnership firm called BVSR Constructions Pvt. Limited and the then Government of A.P., but the suit is instituted by a Company by name M/s. BVSR Constructions Pvt. Limited and that the plaintiff in the suit/applicant in AS. MP. No. 956 of 2017 cannot maintain the suit, since it is not a party to the agreement with the respondents. 8. MP. No. 956 of 2017 cannot maintain the suit, since it is not a party to the agreement with the respondents. 8. The date of entering into agreement between the firm and the respondents was 03.05.2003. 9. There is no pleading by the respondents herein in the written statement filed by them in the suit that the plaintiff in the suit/applicant herein is not entitled to institute the suit to recover the dues under the said agreement. 10. It is not in dispute that the contract was proceeded with and was executed. The evidence on record indicates that there were communications between the plaintiff/applicant herein and respondents, and at no point of time was there any objection raised by the respondents for the execution of the contract by the plaintiff, though the agreement was with the firm with the same name. 11. Sri S. Ravi, Senior Counsel points out that under Part IX of the Companies Act, 1956, the partnership firm, which had entered into agreement with the respondents, was converted into a company and it had taken over all the assets and liabilities of the firm and that was the main reason, why such a plea was not raised by the respondents in the written statement. 12. Prima facie, we find substance in the said contention. 13. Also the fact that respondents have not raised any objection to the execution of the contract by the plaintiff at any point of time also shows that the respondents were aware about the conversion of the firm into a limited company and had no grievance about it. Therefore, this plea of the learned Advocate General is rejected. 14. The 2nd contention advanced by the learned Advocate General appearing for respondents herein is that the petitioner-Company had given Ex. A63 letter dt. 22.12.2006 to the 4th respondent stating that it had "no demands" against the respondents. 15. The Court below considered this aspect in para 87 of its judgment and noted that the respondents had addressed a letter Ex. A62 dt. 08.12.2006 to the petitioner demanding the petitioner to submit "No Demand Certificate" as per the enclosed format to be got typed on the letter head of the plaintiff-company and to be submitted to it, and threatened that the final bill will not be processed unless and until the plaintiff submits the said 'No Demand Certificate' in favour of the department. 08.12.2006 to the petitioner demanding the petitioner to submit "No Demand Certificate" as per the enclosed format to be got typed on the letter head of the plaintiff-company and to be submitted to it, and threatened that the final bill will not be processed unless and until the plaintiff submits the said 'No Demand Certificate' in favour of the department. It concluded therefore that the said letter was not given out of free will or consent and it was obtained by the respondents under economic duress. 16. We prima facie agree and hold that the letter Ex. A63 cannot be said to be a waiver by the applicant herein of its other claims since it was obtained under economic duress. 17. The other contention advanced, by the learned Advocate General is that without any basis amounts were awarded towards control blasting works undertaken by the plaintiff though the Contract did not provide for it. 18. This aspect was also discussed in detail in the order of the Court below in paragraph 81. The Court below noted that the applicant had addressed a letter Ex. A6 on 09.06.2003 itself demanding the respondents to secure necessary permission for control blasting operation since a village is coming in the area of blasting operations. 19. Ex. A5 letter was addressed to the applicant by the respondent-Departments stating that 'necessary deviation statement duly incorporating the specific item of controlled blasting was submitted to the Chief Engineer Medium Irrigation, Hyderabad for approval and the issue is under active consideration at higher level and this was also reiterated in Ex. A7 dt. 13.06.2003 and Ex. A9 dt. 06.06.2003. It is also on record that the respondents issued G.O. proposing acquisition of the said village but the same did not materialize and consequently, the applicant was constrained to resort to control blasting. Also in none of the replies addressed to the applicant by the Department, the department had asked the applicant to stop the control blasting operations. 20. Sri S. Ravi, Senior Counsel also placed reliance on Ex. Also in none of the replies addressed to the applicant by the Department, the department had asked the applicant to stop the control blasting operations. 20. Sri S. Ravi, Senior Counsel also placed reliance on Ex. A73, in which it was specifically stated that report was obtained by the respondents from the Chief Engineer(P), Mahaboobnagar with regard to the claim of the applicant as to control blasting, wherein he stated that: "...based on the final work done measurements recorded in books, for F&F & HR duly making five categories and taken 3 concerned categories for working out details for difference rates of controlled blasting as per observed data and as per agreement and the difference in cost arrived for Rs. 11,19,37,358. It was found that the financial implications will be as follows: (a) By allowing control blasting rates applying rates as per observed data without applying T.P. Rs.11,19,37,358=00 (b) By allowing control blasting rates applying tender discount of (-) 30.50% Rs. 7,79,64,370-00 (c) By waiting of tender discount on the entire working(i.e with normal blasting) Rs.10,21,00,632-00 21. Therefore, prima facie, it cannot be said that there is no basis for the claim of control blasting work made by the applicant. 22. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that an absolute stay of execution of the judgment and decree of the Court below is not warranted and interests of justice would warrant modification of the same, particularly, since the appeal is of the year 2015 and it would take considerable time for its disposal. 23. Accordingly, we modify the order dt. 10.03.2015 in AS.MP. No. 351 of 2015 in AS. No. 131 of 2035 and direct that on condition of the respondents herein/appellants in AS. No. 131 of 2015 depositing 50% of the decretal amount along with costs to the credit of the suit within a period of eight (08) weeks from today, there shall be stay of execution of the judgment and decree dt. 01.04.2014 in OS. No. 6 of 2012 of the IX Additional District Judge, Wanaparthy. On such deposit, the applicant herein/respondent in AS. No. 131 of 2015 is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. 24. Accordingly, this application is ordered.