High Court · 2025

1 Smt. M. Sandhya (Smt. Sandhya Ugkqytlt9kal).,.P1o.. *i' U' Sripad, Aged 46 vears. Occ Hotisewife, Presenfly, R/o. Flat No,103. Sri SaiApartments' VLgeianb Market Road, Nallakunta, Hyderabad, sri Banda Nethranandam, s/o. sri. Banda Babu Yaday, {gq.gg years, occ ArtT;ri, nrc. rA- 7- SgS, SRT Colony, near Chatrinaka Police Station, Uppuguda, Hyderabad, T- S- 2

3. Smt. Rama Agarwal, wo. sris_antosh Kumar Agarwa.l,.Age.About Ssyears Oc" florr"witi, f{lo. if"i tlo. 409 to 411,4th floor, C- block Upasana Ahuja Estate, Abids, HYderabad. 4il,P,U:%fffi t'#:X,"",S;itir:3:HlAl?"H,:1$iff, !:',f,::'13#:'*' 5. Sri Punna Ravi Kumar, s/o. Not Known, Age _about 45-years, p5: fdvgcate' R/o. 11- 9 101, Fr.6nit Uagar, Laxmi nbgir Colony, K6thapet, Hyderabad' 6. Sri S.H.Mahesh Lal, S/o. S. P.Heera Lal, {ge-abotrt42years, Occ.Business, Balaji Rice MiHs, Tulja Bhavani Temple, Macha 'lrlear Rlo- H.No.2- 5- 34, Bolarum, Secunderabad, T. S.

7. Ttre Branch Manager Punjab NationatBank, Sultan Shahi Branch' Door' No' 23- 6- 901/5, WJ Road Sultan ShahiRoad. (l.lote the Respondent No 2 to 7 is forma party and no relief was claimed a'gainst them in lA No 89 of 2022) ...Respondents/ RespondentslDefenda nts lA NO: .l OF 2023 Petitic,n under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affida'dt filed in support of the petition, ine Hign Court may be pleased to grant stay of alt further proceedings in O.S.No.366 of 202. on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition. Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.P.K-ADITYA Counsel for rthe Bespondents: SRI NARESH AGARWAL The Court made the foltowing: ORDER THE HOITBLE JI'STICE B.R.UAI'HUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL RE|TIISION PETITION NO.1831 OF 2023 ORDER: 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under turlicle 227 of the Constitution of tndia assailing the order in I.A.No.E9 of 2022 (frled under Order Xrc(V.il Rule 1, 2 and 5 of CPC) in O.S.No.366 of 2022, dated 06.09.2022 passed by learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civit Court, Hyderabad

2.1 Petitioner herein is the respondent No.1 : defendant No.l and respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner - plaintiff. ,

2.2 It is mentioned in the cause tifle of the civil revision petition that respondent Nos.2 to 7 are proforma parties and no relief is claimed against them. 3- lrarned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court has mechanically exercised the power and granted ex-parte order by merely asking and granted relief which is not in accordance with the rules prescribed under code and also failed to consider Ex.Al sale deed {iled by the respondent No.l - plainti{f bearing document No.l82L of 2019, dated 23.O5.2OL9 which was executed jointly by the petitioner herein - defendant I{o.1 and respondent No.l herein - ptaintiff in capacity of vender Nos.S and

7. Hence the question of petitioner herein - defendant tlo.l giving i : I I I I 1,,. 2/g the bankers cheque for Rs.25,OO,O0O/- bearing No.793OO, dated 2}.O5.2OL9 drawn on Ptrnjab National Bank from the account bearing No.1597OO does not arise at alt and prayed to set aside the impugn:d order.

4. Rr:spondent No.l herein - plaintiff has liled suit against the petitionr:r - defendant No.1 and other defendants (i.e., respondent Nos. 2 to 7 herein) for recovery of Rs.29,5O,1661- with future bank rate intr:rest, also directing the defendant Nos.l to 7 jointly and collectively to pay the compensation and damages to a trrne of Rs.5,OO,OOO/- and restraining defendant No.3, her men, agents who are acting under registered sale deed document No.182 L l2}1r9 dated 2il.O5.2OL9, which was obtained fraudulently.

5. Pe,nrsal of the order dated 06.09.2022, th.e Trial Court has observecl as under: 'H,sard petitioner counsel and perused petition filed. No representation by Rl and matter proceeded exparte for the reasons mentioned in petition and in interest of Justice, this O6-09-2O22 rrutition is allowed direction to Rl to lurnish suret5r or Security of Bank Guarantee to the extent of Suit claim'c,f Rs.29,50, 166/- covered under cheque No.793O0O dt:23.05.2o19 issued by R1. No Costs."

6.1 Le,arned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has frlecl an application uide I.A.No.558 of 2022 in I.A.No.89 of 2022 in O.S.No.366 of 2022 under Section 5 of the Limitatlon A ct on 6.O9.2Oi22 to condone the delay of 5O days in filing the application to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.89 of 2022.

6.2 Counsel has also filed memo in the suit on 6.09.20P2 stating what has transpired in the proceedings whiqh led to allowing I.A.No.89 of 2022.

7. As the petitioner - defendant No.l has already filed an 'applicatiqn under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 5O days in filing an application to set aside the'order passed in I.A.No.89 of 2022, nothing survives in the Givil Revision Petition and he has to agrtate the same before the learned trial Court. tt is made clear that the Trial Court shall dispose. of I.A.No.558 of 2022 and other connected IAs as expeditiously as possible by giving opportunity to the parties.

8. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs. Interim orders if any stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application/s shall stand closed sDr= A. pRarntua DEPUTY ,/TRUE COPYII OFFICER To, t. The V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil.C-ol$.'.H)derabad 2. One CC to SRI M-P.K. ADITYA Advocate tul'ygl 5: o;; ca 6 siii NAneSn AGARWAL, Advbcate {oPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies NVB/sa Yy , I !! HIGH COURT DATED i17l,10l,2025 ORDER CRP.No.1831' of 202;3 DISPOSING THE C!V!L REVISION PETITION 6,Rq"A X@