JUDGMENT Bandaru Syamsunder, J. - These Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioners/R1, R2/plaintiffs under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the common orders passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ongole in I.A. No. 1001 of 2014 and I.A. No. 1002 of 2014 in O.S. No. 110 of 2013 dated 05.10.2015 under Section 94(e) of Civil Procedure Code (in short 'CPC') wherein and whereby the learned Principal District Judge, Prakasam, at Ongole, directed the petitioners/R1, R2 to deposit compensation amount of Rs. 55,94,391/- in the Court within 15 days and also directed R8 to R10 to deposit entire amount of compensation for 60 cents of land including amount released for 40 cents of land at the instance of the petitioners/R1, R2 within 15 days from the date of the order. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed two petitions before trial Court i.e. I.A. No. 1001 of 2014 for directing the petitioners/plaintiffs to deposit compensation amount of Rs. 55,94,391/- in the Court and I.A. No. 1002 of 2014 to direct R8 to R10 to deposit entire amount of compensation in respect of the land to an extent of 60 cents in Sy. No. 36/1 of Pelluru village. 2. The brief averments in the affidavit of R1/D1 in both the petitions, which are similar wherein it is stated that the petitioners herein, shown as R1, R2 in the petitions, have filed suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd share each in the plaint schedule properties consisting of 13 items and also for cancellation of settlement deeds and they filed petition seeking temporary injunction restraining R8 and R9 not to release the compensation amount to R1, R2/D1, D2. It is also averred in the affidavit of R1/D1 that revision petitioners admitted execution of registered relinquishment deeds in her favour in the year 1985 and they themselves purchased 70 cents of land in Sy. No. 29/2A of Malleswaram revenue village from her accepting her title and exclusive possession, thereby asserted her title and possession and they also obtained rectification deed dated 06.08.2012 to the sale deed dated 29.08.2011. R1/D1 submits that R9, R10 fixed the compensation for the land acquired by R9 for the formation of National High Way and item No. 13 of plaint schedule is also subject to acquisition for laying bye-pass road and then R9 fixed compensation @ Rs. R1/D1 submits that R9, R10 fixed the compensation for the land acquired by R9 for the formation of National High Way and item No. 13 of plaint schedule is also subject to acquisition for laying bye-pass road and then R9 fixed compensation @ Rs. 1,40,00,000/- per acre for the said land, due to that it became eyesore to petitioners herein and they also made false claim before R8, R9 in pursuance of notice dated 28.12.2011 issued by R9/D9 wherein she submitted her title deed about her entitlement of receiving compensation for the land shown as item No. 13 in the plaint schedule. She further submits that petitioners/plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claim before Land Acquisition Authorities and then petitioners/plaintiffs have created two registered settlement deeds dated 17.05.2013 in favour of Smt. Pelluru Sirisha Reddy, W/o. Sri Sudheer Reddy, who is no other than the daughter of 2nd petitioner/2nd plaintiff and the said two deeds are nominal and sham created during pendency of the suit as petitioners herein have filed suit on 08.05.2013. It is also the contention of R1, R2/petitioners/D1, D2 that though petitioners herein sought for temporary injunction against R8, R9 not to disburse land acquisition compensation amount to them in respect of Item No. 13 of plaint schedule, playing fraud and in collusion with R8, R9 though R8 and R9 aware of pendency of the suit recognized nominal settlement deeds stands in the name of said Smt. Pelluru Sirisha Reddy, released compensation in her favour without following the procedure laid down under law. It is further alleged that petitioners herein/plaintiffs have received entire compensation amount through their benami Smt. Pelluru Sirisha Reddy by executing nominal and sham documents in respect of item No. 13 of plaint schedule property and prays to direct the petitioners/plaintiffs 1 and 2 to deposit the compensation amount. In I.A. No. 1002 of 2014 they prayed to direct R8 to R10 to deposit entire amount of compensation with respect to item No. 13 of plaint schedule property into the Court. 3. For which, petitioners herein and R9 have filed separate counters denying averments in the affidavit of R1/D1 in both the petitions. In I.A. No. 1002 of 2014 they prayed to direct R8 to R10 to deposit entire amount of compensation with respect to item No. 13 of plaint schedule property into the Court. 3. For which, petitioners herein and R9 have filed separate counters denying averments in the affidavit of R1/D1 in both the petitions. It is the contention of revision petitioners/plaintiffs in their counter that the petition filed under Section 94(e) and Section 151 CPC is to deposit compensation amount, which was already paid by R8 to R10 to third parties is not maintainable in the absence of any pleadings and not paying separate Court Fee in the suit filed by them. They submit that they filed suit seeking partition of plaint schedule property, wherein no counter claim by R1, R2 and they never sought to pass a decree in favour of R1, R2/D1, D2 and if really they got any right or entitlement of any amount of compensation or share from anyone of the defendants or the respondents or third parties, they have to file a separate suit for recovery of the money and not by filing petition under Section 94(e) or 151 CPC. They also stated that as per the contents of affidavit filed by R1 in support of the petition, plaintiffs never received single pie from R8 to R10 and R2/D2, who is an utter stranger to the suit schedule properties, is not entitled to claim any share in the ancestral properties for which they claimed partition, they prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. The 9th respondent also filed counter stating that Central Government proposed to acquire land for the formation of new Ongole Bye-pass Road and process of publication of notification has been completed and as per the survey conducted, an extent of 87 cents in Sy. No. 36/1B of Pelluru village covered for acquisition which stands in the names of Mallavarapu Venkateswarlu, Mallavarapu Krishna Reddy, Mallavarapu Thirupathi Reddy, Mallavarapu Raghava Reddy and Ramireddy Venkayamma (R1/D1). They also stated that a public notice issued under the Act, which also published in Telugu and English Newspapers on 02.12.2011 and 11.02.2013 inviting claims from interested persons, Smt. Kamjula Govindamma and Enimireddy Seshamma (plaintiffs/revision petitioners) filed objection petition claiming title over the land in Sy. They also stated that a public notice issued under the Act, which also published in Telugu and English Newspapers on 02.12.2011 and 11.02.2013 inviting claims from interested persons, Smt. Kamjula Govindamma and Enimireddy Seshamma (plaintiffs/revision petitioners) filed objection petition claiming title over the land in Sy. No. 36/1 of Pelluru village and requested not to pay land acquisition compensation to others and thereafter award enquiry was conducted by the competent authority, passed awards dated 20.04.2012 and 13.05.2013 respectively in respect of Sy. No. 36/1B of Pelluru village that land acquisition compensation will be considered after verifying the documents and after confirming the title over the land. They also stated that after passing of awards, Mr. Mallavarapu Venkateswarlu attended before competent authority stating that he is losing 27 cents of land in Sy. No. 13-1B of Pelluru village under land acquisition and requested for payment of compensation in his favour, who also produced title deed to prove his title over the land to an extent of 61 cents in Sy. No. 36/1 of Pelluru village and then revision petitioners herein, D1 in the suit and daughters of late Sri Mallavarapu Krishna Reddy attended and gave a representation stating that they have no objection to pay land acquisition compensation to their brother Sri Mallavarapu Venkateswarlu for the land to an extent of 27 cents out of the total extent of 87 cents covered under acquisition in Sy. No. 36/1B of Pelluru village and accordingly, compensation was awarded in favour of Mr. Mallavarapu Venkateswarlu for 27 cents of land in Sy. No. 36/1B of Pelluru village. They further stated that during enquiry, they learnt that remaining 60 cents covered under acquisition in Sy. No. 36/1B belongs to Mr. Mallavarapu Krishna Reddy, who died intestate leaving behind him his wife Smt. Venkata Subbamma and three daughters, i.e. revision petitioners and R1/D1 as legal heirs and thereafter one Smt. Pelluru Sirisha Reddy attended before the competent authority and produced registered settlement deeds dated 17.05.2013 executed by revision petitioners/plaintiffs for an extent of 40 cents in Sy. No. 36/1 of Pelluru village, wherein revision petitioners/plaintiffs attended for enquiry and stated that they have no objection to pay land compensation amount to Smt. Pelluru Sirisha Reddy for an extent of 40 cents in Sy. No. 36/1 of Pelluru village, wherein revision petitioners/plaintiffs attended for enquiry and stated that they have no objection to pay land compensation amount to Smt. Pelluru Sirisha Reddy for an extent of 40 cents in Sy. No. 36/1B and accordingly compensation was awarded in her favour as per proceedings dated 24.05.2013 and still there is a balance of compensation in respect of land to an extent of 20 cents, which is to be awarded and distributed and they are ready to deposit the amount in respect of 20 cents of land. They have specifically stated that land compensation amount of Rs. 55,94,391/- for the land to an extent of 40 cents out of total extent of 60 cents in Sy. No. 36/1B of Pelluru village covered by the suit schedule land, i.e. item No. 13 has already been paid to Smt. Pelluru Sirisha Reddy on 24.05.2013 through cheque No. 001442, since no interim orders from any Court to R9 regarding not to issue compensation amount to anyone by the then Special Collector. (Emphasis supplied). They prayed to pass necessary orders. 5. The learned trial Judge after hearing both sides, allowed both petitions directing the revision petitioners to deposit the amount said to be paid to Smt. Pelluru Sirisha Reddy and also directed R8 to R10 to deposit entire amount of compensation in respect of the land to an extent of 60 cents including the amount released for 40 cents within 15 days from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the common orders passed by the learned trial Judge, two separate revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs with common grounds stating that orders passed by the trial Court are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of cases. They submit that the trial Court failed to consider that they have not received any money from R8, R9 and trial Court failed to follow the principles laid down under Section 94 and 151 CPC, they prayed to allow the revision petitions and dismiss the petitions filed by R1, R2/D1, D2 before the trial Court. 6. I have heard both sides. 7. 6. I have heard both sides. 7. The learned advocate for revision petitioners mainly contended that though admittedly revision petitioners have not received any land compensation in respect of item No. 13 of plaint schedule property, which admittedly received by one Smt. Pelluru Sirisha Reddy, trial Court directed revision petitioners to deposit the amount without adding the person, who received compensation, as one of the respondent in both the petitions. He submits that petition filed under Section 94(e) of CPC by R1, R2/D1, D2 is not maintainable as there is no pleading in the written statement or no counter-claim in the suit filed by the revision petitioners. He prays to allow the revision petitions. 8. The learned advocate for R2 also submitted that though suit is filed by the revision petitioners including item No. 13, which is land to an extent of 60 cents in Sy. No. 36/1, petitioners have created nominal settlement deed in favour of daughter of second petitioner by name Smt. Pelluru Sirisha Reddy during the pendency of the suit, though they have no title over the said land on the date of execution of alleged document, due to that trial Court rightly directed petitioners and also R8 to R10 to deposit land compensation amount for the land to an extent of 60 cents including 40 cents of land. He further argued that as per Gazette Notification issued, land in Sy. No. 36/1 and after sub division it is 36/1B is also acquired and as per Section 3D(2) of the National High Ways Act, once notification has been issued, the said land vests absolutely with the Central Government free from all encumbrances, due to that, petitioners herein have no right or title to execute any settlement deed in favour of said Smt. Pelluru Sirisha Reddy. He also argued that petitioners themselves have beneficiaries and benami of said Smt. Pelluru Sirisha Reddy, it also observed by learned trial Judge, due to that directed them to deposit the amount received for 40 cents of land. He prays to dismiss the revision petitions. 9. Now, the point that emerges for consideration by this Court is: 'Whether the orders under challenge are sustainable, tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India?' 10. He prays to dismiss the revision petitions. 9. Now, the point that emerges for consideration by this Court is: 'Whether the orders under challenge are sustainable, tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India?' 10. POINT: Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Section 94(e) of CPC, which reads as under: 'SECTION 94: SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS: In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the Court may, if it is so prescribed,- (a) issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to show cause why he should not give security for his appearance, and if he fails to comply with any order for security commit him to the civil prison; (b) direct the defendant to furnish security to produce any property belonging to him and to place the same at the disposal of the Court or order the attachment of any property; (c) grant a temporary injunction and in case of disobedience commit the person guilty thereof to the civil prison and order that his property be attached and sold; (d) appoint a receiver of any property and enforce the performance of his duties by attaching and selling his property; (e) make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient.' 11. On perusal of above referred provision of law, which shows that Clause (e) is continuation of clauses (a) to (d), which cannot be read in isolation or separately, which makes it clear that to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, the Court may issue arrest warrant against the defendant and direct the defendant to furnish security and grant temporary injunction and in case of disobedience, commit him to civil prison and to appoint receiver and enforce the performance and also make interlocutory orders in that aspect, which are just and convenient. The plain reading of above referred provision shows that supplemental proceedings can be initiated by plaintiffs in the suit. The plain reading of above referred provision shows that supplemental proceedings can be initiated by plaintiffs in the suit. Though there is no bar for defendants also seeking such relief of injunction, provided, it is permissible only after a relief of similar nature would be granted in favour of defendant in the main suit or original petition and unless there is a counter claim or set off filed by the defendant, the defendant is not entitled to any relief against the plaintiff by filing petition under Section 94(e) CPC. In the present case, there is no dispute that plaintiffs and R1/D1 are sisters and children of late Mr. Krishna Reddy and petitioners herein have filed suit for partition claiming 1/3rd share each in plaint schedule properties including item No. 13 i.e. land to an extent of 60 cents in Sy. No. 36/1 of Pelluru village and said to be sought for temporary injunction restraining R8, R9 in paying land compensation amount to R1, R2/D1, D2 claiming that relinquishment deeds alleged to have been executed by them and their mother in favour of R1, R2/D1, D2 are sham and sought for its cancellation. It appears that revision petitioners/plaintiffs also filed petition for interim injunction, wherein trial Court ordered notice and no orders were passed restraining R8 to R10 to disburse land compensation amount in respect of land to an extent of 60 cents in Sy. No. 36/1 of Pelluru village(i.e. item No. 13 of plaint schedule). It is specifically mentioned in the counter filed by R9 that as there is no injunction restraining them to disburse land compensation and on claim made by Smt. Sirisha Reddy, they disbursed money to her in respect of 40 cents of land out of 60 cents and they are ready to deposit land compensation amount for the land to an extent of 20 cents. As there is no interim injunction orders, R9 disbursed the land compensation though it is pending suit and question of disbursement and alienation of item No. 13 by petitioners, whether it is hit by doctrine of lis pendens can only be decided in the main suit not in the interlocutory applications, due to that, observations of learned trial Judge in that aspect are not warranted. Further admittedly R1, R2/D1, D2 have not made any counter claim in the suit claiming amount disbursed to Smt. Sirisha Reddy and chosen to file petition under Section 94(e) CPC, which amounts to seeking interim injunction orders without any counter claim or set off in the suit filed by revision petitioners, which is not permissible under law. Admittedly, R9 paid land compensation amount to Smt. Sirisha Reddy, said to be daughter of second petitioner by way of bank cheque, but it is peculiar to note that she is not added as one of the respondent in the petition filed by R1, R2 when they are seeking relief of directing to deposit money which she received from R9 authorities. It is also strange to note that learned trial Judge having come to conclusion that petitioners herein, who executed settlement deed pending suit in favour of Smt. Sirisha Reddy have to deposit land compensation amount of Rs. 55,94,391/- and again directed R8 to R10 to deposit entire land compensation amount for 60 cents of land including the amount released for 40 cents at the alleged instance of revision petitioners. The learned trial Judge ought to have decided contention raised by R1, R2 in the main suit including validity of settlement deeds said to be executed by petitioners herein in favour of Smt. Sirisha Reddy and entitlement of land compensation amount in respect of item No. 13, but entertained the petition filed by R1, R2 under Section 94(e) CPC without pleadings or claim on the part of R1, R2, which is not permissible under law. Therefore, the orders passed by learned trial Judge are not sustainable and tenable, which needs interference by this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 12. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The petitions filed by R1, R2/D1, D2 in I.A. No. 1001 of 2014 and 1002 of 2014 in O.S. No. 110 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, are hereby set aside and petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The petitions filed by R1, R2/D1, D2 in I.A. No. 1001 of 2014 and 1002 of 2014 in O.S. No. 110 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, are hereby set aside and petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. If in pursuance of orders passed by trial Judge in I.A. No. 1002 of 2014, R8 to R10 deposited land compensation amount in respect of land to an extent of 20 cents into the Court, it shall be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipt, which disbursement shall be subject to the result of main suit. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in these revision petitions, shall stand closed. The learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of main suit itself, within six (06) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.