- (1.) LEAVE granted. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent. Heard the parties.
(2.) THE earlier S.L.P. (C) No. 88 of 2006 was against the interim order dtd. 12/12/2005 directing that the amount to be deposited by the appellant be released in favour of the respondent subject to furnishing of security to the satisfaction of the Registrar General, Delhi High Court. That being an interim order, the S.L.P. against the order dtd. 12/12/2005 was dismissed by this Court on 16/1/2006. Subsequent to the dismissal of the S.L.P., it appears that the High Court was of the view that the appeal has virtually become infructuous and by the subsequent order dtd. 21/2/2006 the amount deposited by the appellant was directed to be released in favour of the respondent without furnishing the security.
(3.) THE dismissal of the S.L.P. against the order dtd. 12/12/2005 would mean it was relegated back to the order passed on 12/12/2005. The High Court, therefore, was not justified in passing another order directing the release of the deposited amount in favour of the respondent without furnishing security. We are not at all happy with such type of order passed in the facts and circumstances of this case.;