Complainant/Respondent Kanchanben purchased four FDRs of Rs. 18,000/- each totaling Rs. 72,000/- on 17.08.1998 from the Opposite Party/Petitioner Credit Society Bank. The FDRs were to mature on 17.01.2004. On maturity the Petitioner was required to pay Rs. 1,44,000/- to the Respondent. When Respondent approached Petitioner for the payment of FDRs on their maturity the maturity amount was not paid to her as the loan amount taken by Anuradhaben, one of the daughters of Kanchanben who was named in the FDRs as one of the joint owners, had not been paid. Being aggrieved Kanchanben filed a complaint before the District Forum. On being noticed Petitioner took the stand that since against one of the joint holders there was an outstanding amount towards loan the society had the first lien on the deposits made by them. That the society could withhold the amount till the loan account was cleared. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 1,44,000/- to the Complainant along-with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 9.3.2004 till its payment. Petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition. It is not disputed that Complainant along-with Ushaben and Anuradhaben her two daughters purchased four FDRs in their joint name of Rs. 18,000/- each totaling to Rs. 72,000/- on 17.08.1998 which were to mature on 17.1.2004. As there was some outstanding loan amount against Anuradhaben one of the joint holders the Petitioner claiming lien on the amount withheld the payment of the amount to the Respondent. The fora below have allowed the complaint by observing that since the principal owner was Kanchanben the loan amount against Anuradhaben was of no consequence and the Petitioner was bound to pay the amount to the Complainant/Respondent Kanchanben. That the amount deposited by Kanchanben could not be withheld only on the ground that she had joined her two daughters as a joint holders. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has fairly conceded today before us that the Petitioner had settled the dispute with Smt. Anuradhaben on payment of Rs. 1,79,458/- i.e. the amount due towards Smt. Anuradhaben. In view of the statement made by the Counsel for the Petitioner the Petitioner has no right to withhold the amount deposited by Kanchanben. The Petitioner is not having its lien on the said deposit any longer in view of the payment made by Smt. Anuradhaben of the outstanding loan amount. Though we agree with the Counsel for the Petitioner that in view of the outstanding amount due against one of the joint holders Petitioner had the lien on the FDRs and could withhold the amount and the fora below were wrong in saying that the bank could not withhold the amount but in view of the fact that Smt. Anuradhaben has already cleared the amount and the said FDRs are no longer under lien of the Petitioner we uphold the ultimate order passed by the fora below directing the Petitioner to refund the FDR amounts to the Respondent along-with interest @ 9% p.a. as per the directions issued by the State Commission w.e.f. date of filing of complaint till realization. Counsel for the Petitioner states that Petitioner has already paid Rs. 25,600/- to the Respondents in pursuance of the order dated 19.04.2007 of this Commission. If that be so then the Petitioner shall pay the awarded amount along-with interest @ 9% p.a. after deducting the amount already paid to the Respondent. The Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly.