Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) A suit for recovery has been instituted by respondent no.2, in which an order was passed permitting unconditional leave to contest the suit during trial. This order was challenged by respondent no.2 before this Court by filing Revision No.380 of 2013, which was allowed in part on 23rd September, 2014 in following terms:- "38. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order dated 25.07.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 14, Allahabad, unconditionally allowing the Application 18-C of the defendant/respondent to leave to defend the Original Suit No. 1014 of 2012 under Order XXXVII, Rule 3(5) of Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff revisionist requires modification. It would be in fitness of the things to direct the defendant/respondent to deposit the substantial amount which was admitted by it to be due as already discussed in detail herein above and for the balance amount the defendant respondent be further directed to give security in terms of Rule 3(6) Order 37 CPC. 39. Thus keeping in view the provisions of Order 37 Rule 3(5)(6) of the Code of Civil Procedure, leave to defend the suit in respect of the claim of the plaintiff/revisionist is subject to the condition that the defendant/respondent will deposit 50% of the total amount in cash as claimed by the revisionist in the suit and furnish adequate security for the remaining half to the satisfaction of the Court below within six weeks from today. 40. With this observation, the present revision stands partly allowed. No order as to costs."
(2.) Being aggrieved by this order, the defendant petitioner approached the Apex Court by way of Special Leave Petition No.32607 of 2014, which was rejected by the Apex Court, vide following orders passed on 15th December, 2014:- "Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following order- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material. We do not find any legal and valid ground for interference. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. However, the time fixed by the High Court for payment of 50% of the total amount by cash and the remaining half by way of security is extended by another two weeks from today."
(3.) It appears that instead of depositing 50% amount as cash in terms of the direction issued by this Court on 23.9.2014 in revision, the petitioner moved an application before the court below stating that instead of deposit of amount in cash, the petitioner be permitted to deposit Fixed Deposit Receipts, and the same be treated as valid substitute of cash. This application has been rejected, vide order dated 1.1.2015, which is under challenge in this petition. The order of the trial court clearly records that the petitioner has not complied with the directions issued by the revisional court on 23.9.2014, inasmuch as the 50% amount, which was required to have been deposited, has not been deposited so far, and that security for the balance amount was also not furnished to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Prayer made in that regard by the defendant petitioner before the court below has been rejected.;