The High Court · 2025

sangam Ramulu s/o. Raja Lingam , Age. 63 years, occ. Business under the lqg-. ^T.d.- -llyle as M/s. Sri Sai tdk'frmi agro services, vide GST|N.36A1YPS9714\\ALZ| R/o Flat No. 406 Sth floorl Cryslit rr"" vansai projects, Kompally, Hyderabad,Telanagana. 'etoit ... PETITIONER/PLAI NTIFF Malluri konadal rao, Husband of smt.Malluri Mdhavi aged about 42 yrs, occ . Bussiness under the name and style as Apna" Beej giogdne, vide GSTI N. 36AWDPK0440M 1 21 Plot N.93 Su ryanagar, beside filuiuht u theater -Naga-r, old iafilguoi,-lrrtaita;giri Line,Medchal R/o H.No.30-212tst1,shafi secundrabad.. AND 1

2. Malluri Madhavu, Wo Kondal Rao apna beej biogener R/o H.No.30-21 secunderabad. qged 40 years, Occ.Bussines supervisor 2l5l1,Shafi Nagar, Old safilguda, Makajgiri ... RESPONDE NTS/DE FEN DANTS Counsel for the P-etitioner: Sri p. Vivek Kumar Naik Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. Hina Malhotra The Court made the following: ORDER 1 INTHEcoURTFoRTHESTATEoFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THEHoNoURABLEsMT.JUSTICERENUI{AYARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO' 1O33 of 2O25 29TH DAY OF 2025 Between: Sangam Ramulu .. . Petitioner/ Plaintiff Malluri Kondal Rao and another . .. Respondents/ defendants ORDER: Heard Mr. P. Vivek Kumar Naik, learned counsel for the 1. petitioner and Ms. Hina Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record' This civil Revision petition is preferred aggrieved by the 2. order dated 11.11 .2024 passed by the learned II Additional District and sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal (for short the Trial courtJ in I.A.No -ll2 of 2024 in o.s.No.Toof2024,wherein,apetitionfiledunderorder33 Rule 6(1) r/w 151 of CPC has been dismissed' 2

3. The learned rrial court has dismissed the petition on the sole ground that the properties sought to be attached are not within the jurisdiction of Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The relevant portion is extracted and produced below: "11. On perusal of the petition, it appears that A, schedule propert5r is not within the jurisdiction of this Court. So also 'B' schedule property is not within the jurisdiction of this court. As such, this court has no jurisdiction to attach the property A, and 'B'schedule properties. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed."

4. The revision petitioner referred to Section 136 of cpc wherein procedure is prescribed for arrest of a person or property to be attached which is situated outside the jurisdiction of the court. Said text is extracted and produced below: "136. Procedure where person to be arrested or property to be attached is out side district. (1) Where an application is made that any person shall be arrested or that any property shall be attached under any provision of this Code not relating to the execution of decrees, and such person resides or such propert5r is situate outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court to which the application is made, the Court may, in its discretion, issue, a warrant of arrest of make an order of attachment, and send to the District Court within :3 the local limits of whose jurisdiction such person or property resides or is situate a copy of the warrant tr o.aer, together with the probable amount of the costs of the arrest or attachment-" The above section of cPC clearly demonstrates that a 5. civil court may pass orders for attachment with respect to property which is situated outside its jurisdiction and send attachment ord.er to the District court whose local limits or jurisdiction such property is situated. Therefore, there was a clear error in the ord.er passed by the learned Trial court in the impugned I.A. The learned. counsel for the revision petitioner 6. submitted that schedule 'A' and 'B' properties stand in the name of respondent No.1 and 2 respectively and it is necessary that they are attached in order to ensure that the decree is satisfied. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the 7. revision petition alleging that schedule 'A' property is already attached by a bank and said property is not available for attachment. Further, it is submitted that schedule 'B'property stands in the nalne of respondent No.2 and that a wife's property may not be attached to satisfy the decree passed Z4 against her husband respondent No.1. Further, it is emphasized tl:.at schedule 'B' property is not purchased from the proceeds of the business and therefore, there are no grounds or no merits in the Revision Petition.

8. It is seen that as per registered sale deed document No.1415 of 2OLO, dated 03.05.2010, schedule 'A' property stands in the narne of respondent No.l and as per registered sale deed document No.2698 of 2018, dated 11.09.2018, schedule B' property stands in the name of respondent No.2 who is the wife. As per cheques furnished at page Nos.59 to 76 of the material papers, they were issued by respondent No.1 in the name of company and summary suits were also filed in that regard. The respondent No.2 is the proprietor of the company and in proprietorship, the proprietor has personal liability for the liabilities of the company. Therefore, objections notwithstanding since the reason cited for dismissal of the I.A is not sound in law, said order is liable to be set aside. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed

9. setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri 5: District at Medchal in I.A.No.lL2 of 2024 in O.S.No.7O of 2024, dated 1 1.1 1 .2024. Consequently, I.A.No.112 of 2024 stands allowed. The respondents are directed to either furnish bank security for the admitted amount within (721 hours, failing which the schedule A'and 'B'properties be attached. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs //TRUE COPY// Sd/- B. G. VYJAYANTHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional District and Sessions Judge Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal. i

2. One CC to Sri P. Vivek Kumar Naik, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Ms. Hina tvlalhotra, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies VH HIGH COURT RY, J DATEDi 29f1212025 ORDER CRP.No.1033 of 2025 3 0 ETE p ? .!. ) n !t" r."tf ALLOWING THE CRP U J q