High Court · 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 Direct the respo.ndent to maintain status quo ante, i.e., to keep the schedule premises under lock and key with the trial court till the disposal of the above C.R.P. Counsel for the Petitioners: Counsel for the Respondent Mr. Mb. NAWAZ HYDER.ALI, AdVOCAIE Mr. H.VENUGOPAL, Senior Advopate, representing Mr. NALLA MUKUNDA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER 'I IN THE H][GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAIi[GANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI(A YARA C.R.P.No.L329 of 2o25 Date 22.12.2o.25 Between: Srivin Australia Consultancy, LLP and another Yatendra Wa1;hray ORDER ... Petitioners ... Respondent Heard I\{r.Mohammed Nawaz I-Iyder Ali, learned counsel for the petitione::s and Mr. H.Venugopal, Iearned Senior Counsel appearing on beha.tf of Mr. Nalla Mukunda lReddy, learned counsel for the respondent

2. 'l'his Civil l?evision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/ judgment debtors aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2025 passed in E.P.No.l28 of 2025 in O.S.No.3460 of 2022 on the file of the learned VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

3. The resp,ondent-ptaintiff liled a suit for eviction and the same \/as decreed uide ttre judgment and decrce dated 30.12.2024 -thereafter the revision pctitioners-.defendants have preferred 2 \-= \ j. A'S'No'38 of 2025 on the file of the learned IX Additional chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad. Meanwhile, the respondent_ plaintiff i.e., the decree horder uid.e E.p.No. L2g of 2o2s seeking delivery of possession, no notice was issued to the revision petitioners-defendants as the E.p. was filed within two (02) years of passing of the decree. The said observation was made by the learned VII Junior civil Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad in the docket order dated 2r .o2.2o2s. on 2r .o2.2o2s, an order was passed for issuance of warrant under order 21 Rule 36 of the Civil Procedure code on payment of process and the matter was posted on 06.03.2025. on 06.03.2o2s, the matter was agairr posted for payment of process to 26.0 3.2025

4. There are two dates in the docket order dated o6.o3.2o2s, one date is 28.o3.2o2s for payment of process and the next hearing date is shown to be 26.o3.2o2s. It is not clear whether the court intended tr: take up the matter on 2g.o3.2o2s or 26'03'2025. In any case, the matter was called on 26.o3 .2025 and the following docket order was passed by the rearned vII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. a "EP advanced to today by allowingEA/2o2s. F,A/2s. Issue Fresh Warrant on paJrnent of process. Call on IL.O4.2O2S." /' / I I 3

5. From the above docket order, it is seen that as per hearing date, there \ ras no need for advancement of E.P. and the matter was posted on 11.04.2025 for payment of process. Since, the matter was taken up on 26.03.2025, which is the next date of \ t hearing; this Court does not see any reason for advancement. Whereas, Lhe grievance of the revision petitioners-defendants is that the matter was advanced without giving notice in the said advancement petition. Sincc the docket proceedings show convergence of next date of heerring and the date on which the impugned orrier is passed, this Court sees that there was no advancement and therefore there was no occasion for giving notice in the E.A. filed for advancement. Currently, the suit schedule property has been delivered and the same is conceded by the revision petitioners-defendants in docket order dated 11.O4.2025.

6. This Court ordered bailiff to preserve the articles in the sealed premisr:s and to protect them. Currently, the articles of the revision petitirrners-defendants are preserved and protected in a part of the suit schedule premises. Once the possession is delivered, the 'l.R.P. is rendered infructuous.

7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. The rcvision petitioners-defendants may approach the Executing Court for delivery of the articles, which are in the ; i. i- \ 4 suit schedule premises in the custody of Bailiff/court. shall be no order as to costs. l'-r There Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition, shall stand closed \ //TRUE COPY// SD/- LI BAIG ISTRA ION OFFICER To,

1. The Vll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad(with records if any)

2. One CC to Mr. MD NAWAZ HYDER ALl, Advocate [OPUC] 3;. One C.Q-to Mr I].VENUGOPAL, Senior Advocate, representing ltlr. NALLA " MUKUNDA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies rclpsl / HIGH COIJRT DATED: 2:,211212025 ORDER ..f HE ST;i CRP.No.1329 of 2025 I 2 3 JAN 2O2E .1it ), Accordingly, this Griminal Petition is Dismissed as lnfructuous. i (,