The High Court · 2025

-. bomoanies Act, 1956, Having its registered otficsat l-evel 1, Wing-2, Block-C, FirstFloor, Cybbr Gateway, ttitech eity' Hyderabad-500081 Rep' by its Authorized Signatory, Vanit Kumar ...Respondent / Petitioner / Plaintiff

2. Reliance Projects & Property Management service Ltd, A company^registered - ,nAe, Comp5nies Rct, 2Ot S, Having its registered office at Office 10'l Sitfron, rue'aiCentre Point, Fancha-wat 5 Rasta, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad - . 563O00 terjrr"t) Rep. by iis Authorized Representative Sri' Sripada Surendra ...Respondent / Respondent No 2./ Defendant No 2 ' lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in o.S.No.27 ot 2025 on the file of the V Addl' District Judge,RangaReddyDistrict,L.B.Nagar,pendingthedisposalofthemainCRP' lrd NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Docket Order dated 281112025 passed in lA No 54 of 2025 in OS No 27 of 2025 on the file of the V Addl District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, LB Nagar, pending the disposal of the main CRP. Counsel for the.Petitioner Counsel for the Respondent No 1 Sri Sunil S Ganu, Senior Counsel Rep. M/s Joshi And Chillara Legal Associates LLP Sri Vedula Srinivas, Senior Counsel Sri K Chenchurami Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No 2 Sri Veera Shiva Kumar The Court made the following Order : ) Page I of 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIC E P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No .44O of 2025 ORDER: The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying the Court to set aside the Docket Order dated

28.01.2025 passed in Interlocutory Application No'54 of 2025 in Original Suit No.27 of 2025 by the V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L'B' Nagar (for short, 'the imPugned order').

2. Heard Mr. Mr. Sunil S. Ganu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s.Joshi and Chillara Legal Associates LLP, for the petitioner; Mr' Vedula Srinivas' learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr' K. Chenchurami Reddy, for respondent No'1; and Mr'Veera Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No 2'

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court directed the respondent no.2-Company herein to deposit the monthly rent, i.e., the schedule property rent at Rs'4'22'7481- in the Court from February, 2025 instead of being paid to the respondent No. 1 1 I I 2 PSK,J ct P _44o _2o)5

4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.l (plaintiff) had filed the above suit on 2O.O1.2O25 seeking for specihc performance of an Agreement of Sale bearing Document No.2l5Tl2Ol9, dated 29.O3.2019, said to have been agreed 1n respect of the suit schedule property

5. Notices were issued arrd the respective parties appeared on 27 .OI.2O2S

6. Along with the above suit, two interlocutory applications were Iiled, viz., Interiocutory Application No.53 of 2025 which is a petition fited by the respondent No.1 (plaintiff) under Order XXXX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Civil procedure Code, 19OB r.r,ith a prayer to grant an ad interim injunction restraining the petitioner herein and her managers, representatives, relatives, attorney holders and agents from alienating the petition schedule property in favour of third parties pending adjudication; arrd Interlocutory Application No.54 of 2025 in O.S.No.27 of 2O2S was filed by the respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) under Order XV-A read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure C)ode, 1908 with a prayer to dire<:t the ..1.:-- P5 K,.J ctp _44O _2025 respondent No.2 herein to pay rent / mesne profits payable to respondent No.1 inler alia directing the respondent No'2 herein to pay the rent to the petitioner or to the Court instead of the respondent No.1 to the tune of R's'4,22,7481' per month from February,2025. In I.A.No.54 of 2025, the respondent No'2 remained 7. absent and therefore the respondent No'2 was set ex parte' Further, the Trial Court, in spite of there being no counter- affidavit filed to the above I 'A' s, recorded that the respondent No.1 has filed counter-affidavit to the above I.A.s though at a later stage the same respondent No' 1 has been shown to have sought time to file counter-affidavit in the above I.A.s. The matter was thereafter posted to

28.O1.2025 for hearing '

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that on 27.01.2025 when the above two I A's were taken up for hearing it was made to understand that the matter was getting posted and to be taken up on 10'02 '2025' and whereas I.A.No.54 of 2025 was posted and taken up on 28.Ot .2025, i.e., the next day itself' However, it appears that the learned counsel appearing before the Trial Court ,l 4 PSK,J ctp _4 4O _2025 was not aware of the next date of hearing being,.28.07.2025 and therefore did not appea_r on the said date before the Trial court. Accordingry, there was no repr-esentation made by the petitioner or by their counser on that date when I.A.No.S4 of 2025 was taken up on 28.01.2025. Therefore, in the absence of learned counsel appearing before the Trial Court on the said date, and also for non_ filing of counter-afficlavit by the parties before the Court on 2B.Ol.2O2S, the impugned order came to be passed by the Trial Court directing the respondent No.2 to deposit the monthly rent to the tune of Rs.4,22,74g/_ fromthe month of Februar.y, 2O2S until further orders in the account of the Court. It is this order which the petitioner seerns to be challenging in rhe instant Revisjon. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner primariiy contended that on 2B.Ol.2O2S when the matter wa.s taken up for hearing : firstly, they were absent; secondry, counter-a_fficlavit was not filed by the petitioner to the above two I.A. s; thirdiy, the petitioner was not grernted a fair opportunity of hearing before the I.A.No.54 of 2025 was taken up for an rnterim order; lastly the petitioner on made to believe that the next date of

27.O7.2025 ,was 5 P5K,J ctP _44o _2025 hearing is 1O.O2.2O25; and therefore contended that the Trial Court ought not to have passed the impugned order'

10. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No ' 1 vehemently opposed the above contentions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner on the ground that the impugned Docket Order dated 27.OL2O25 itself is a speaking Order with clear indication of the matter being fixed for hearing on 28.01.2025, i.e., on the very next date and in spite of their being a specific order, the'parties did not chose to appear on the next date of hearing and also did not file counter- a-ffidavit. Therefore, the Trial Court cannot be blamed for passing the impugrred order. He further contended that since the matter now stands posted to O3'03 2025 for hearing on I.A.No.54 of 2025 itself and the respondents have already filed their counter-a-ffidavit to the said I'A'' let the Trial Court take a final decision on the said I'A' and the impugned order at this juncture need not be interdicted with by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of india'

11. Having due consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side artd on a perusal of 6 PSK,J ,:tp-44o_2025 the proceedings particularly the impugned Docket Order dated 27.0t.2O25, (i) firstly, what is reflected is that there is an incor:ect observation of counter having filed which in fact was nc,t filed. and (ii) secondly, the stage for u,hich the I.A. was proceeded on 28.01.2025 also was nor cleariy reflected in asmuch as whether the case was posted on 28.O1.2025 for hearing on I.A.No.54 of 2O2S or whether the case was posted for filing of counter_alfidavit by the parties to the said I.A. L2. Another fact which is reflected from the impugned order is that undisputedly on 2g.OI.2O2S u..hen the matter was taken up there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner / defendant No. 1 before the Trial Court ald therefore the petitioner / defendant No.1 was deprived of hearing before the impugned order was passed.

13. Considering the nature of relief that was sough t for in LA.No.54 of 2025, this Court is of the opinion that the matter could have been taken by the Trial Court again on 1O.O2.2O25 without passing the impugned order on 28.07.2025. Moreover, when the respondent No.2 herein had not appeared before the Trial court as the duration in I , 7 P5K,.l ctP _44o _2025 between was too short a period, no prejudice would have been caused to either of the parties if the interim order had not been passed on 28.01-2025. L4. Given the above factual matrix of the case' now that the matter stards fixed for hearing on I'A'No'54 of 2025 in O.S.No.27 of 2025 on 03.03.2025 and counter-affidavit having been filed by respondent No'2 to the said I A'' this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be in the larger interest of justice that the instarrt Revision at this juncture is disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to consider I.A.No.54 of 2025 in O.S'No'27 of 2025 on its own merits and in accordance with law after hearing both sides'

15. In the interregnum, the i.rnpugned Docket Order dated 2a.O1.2025 passed in Interlocutory Application No.54 of 2025 in Original Suit No'27 of 2025 by the V Additionai District Judge, Ranga Reddy District' at L'B' Nagar so far as the direction to respondent No'2 to deposit the rent in the Court instead of paying to the respondent No.1, sha1l be kePt in abeYance.

16. Accordingly, the Revision stands disposed of with the above directions. No costs' I I To, 8 PSK,J crP_44o_2O25

17. As a sequel, miscellaleous applications pending if any, shall staad closed. //TRUE COPYII Sd/- P. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar 2. One CC to M/s Joshi And Chillara Legal Associates LLp, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Sri K Chenchurami Reddy, Advocate IOPUCI 4. One CC to Sri Veera Shiva Kumar, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Co pres HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 ORDER CRP.No.440 of Z02S 2 4 F[fl 2025 \ .' 1". ).r :. ;i DISPOSING OF THE CRP $-