A court must examine supporting evidence before ordering deposit of disputed DEMAT proceeds.

The respondent, defendant in the pending partition suit, applied under Section 151 CPC for a direction requiring the petitioner-plaintiff to deposit ₹2,93,26,936, alleged to have been withdrawn from their late father’s demat account.

The petitioner disputed the alleged withdrawal and the basis for the amount. Although his objections acknowledged that the parties’ father had two demat accounts, he denied that the respondent could demand a deposit of the amount in question.

The trial court partly allowed the application and directed the petitioner to deposit ₹1,25,25,768, calculating the sum by reference to the alleged withdrawals from both accounts.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution. Before the High Court, the respondent did not dispute that supporting documents had not been placed on record, but maintained that funds in a savings account linked to the demat account had been withdrawn by the petitioner.

Whether the trial court was justified in directing the petitioner to deposit ₹1,25,25,768 without supporting documents establishing the alleged withdrawals and amounts.

Whether the impugned order should be set aside and the application reconsidered after the parties had an opportunity to place and respond to relevant evidence.

The application before the trial court was made under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, invoking the court’s inherent powers.

The writ petition invoked Article 227 of the Constitution, under which the High Court considered the challenged interlocutory order.

The High Court’s stated procedural principle was that, where a party’s request for a deposit rests on disputed allegations of withdrawal, the trial court should first call for and examine supporting documents before making the deposit order.

The trial court calculated the amount to be deposited on the basis of alleged withdrawals and an assumed entitlement to equal shares, but the record contained no documents substantiating the alleged withdrawals.

The respondent did not dispute that evidentiary gap before the High Court. Because the asserted withdrawal of funds from an account linked to the demat account remained unsupported by documents, the trial court should have obtained and examined the relevant material before directing a deposit.

The High Court therefore set aside the order while allowing the respondent to file supporting documents and the petitioner to object to them.

It permitted the respondent to file an additional affidavit with relevant documents within two weeks and the petitioner to file objections within two weeks thereafter.

The trial court was directed to reconsider the application afresh in light of the documents, with the parties’ rights and contentions left open.