The High Court · 2022

Petition under Section 114 ol CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to Review the orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court daled 18-7-2022 in lA.No. 1 of 2021 in CCCA.No. 4 of 2021 , by His Lordship's Justice B.Sambasivarao Naidu. lA.No. 1 ol 2021: Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders to stay the operation of the judgment dated Sth October, 2020 passed in OS.No. 9/2003 on the file of the Court of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, pending disposal of CCCA.No. 412021 on the file of the High Court. -," The Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition and grounds filed herein and the order of the High Court dated. 18-07-2022 made in lA.No. 1 of 2021 and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Srikanth Hari Haran, Advocate for the Petitioners and of M/s. Vedula Chitralekha, Advocate for the Respondent No.1, the Court made the following ORDER: \ * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU REVIEW PETITION.No.L of 2022 In C.C.C.A.No.4 of 2021 ORDER: The review petitioners herein are respondent/ lst opposite party vide C.C.C.A.No.4 of 2021. Being aggrieved by the order of this is Court in I.A.No.1 of 2O2l in the above appeal, the petitioners herein sought for review of the order on the following grounds: The Court while disposing I.A.No.l of 2O2l ought to have appreciated that the suit has been decreed with costs and the costs werc duly incorporated in the decree. Therefore, such a condition ought to have been imposed on the appellant with regard to the said costs.

2. The petitioners further submitted that this Court whiie disposing the above interlocutory application ought to have taken note the submission of the petitioners that the entire sale consideration has been paid. The same was recorded in the judgment of the trial Court. Possession was already delivered to the petitioners' way back in the month 2 ssx,\t, J LA,No.1 ol2022 in C.C,c,A,No,4 of 2O21 of March, 1998. Therefore, their prayer of acquisition of sale deed pursuant to the decree subject to any condition would have been ordered. The petitioners have claimed that this Court misconstrued the suit as having been filed on the basis of oral sa-le agreement. But, the suit is filed on the basis of Ex.A727 coupled with 8x.A130. The payment was evident by Ex.Al21 to Ex.AL24 being bank transfer.

3. They have also claimed that the Court while disposing the interlocutory application, ought to have appreciated that though the bank had invokeC SARSAESI Act, the same has been made subject to outcome of the civil suit presently impugned in the main appeal vide order dated 22.O8.2018 in W.P.No.1866 of 2079 and this Court held that the outcome to the civil suit wouid decide the list and that refuse to interdict on behalf of the bank. Therefore, according to the petitioners this Court while disposing the interiocutory application could have seen that Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad vide its order dated 27.O7.2021 in S.A.No.l4O4 of 2077 lnad held that there was no subsisting mortgage in favour of the bank as 3 SSRJV, J LA.No.7 oJ 2022 tn c.C.C,A,No.4 oJ 2o2, on the date of the sale agreement in favour of the petitioners and that rejected the claim of mortgage of the bank and quashed the notice issued by the bank under Section 13 (a) of SARSASI Act. The petitioners have claimed I that this Court have accepted the submission of the petitioners for execution of sale deed pursuant to the decree in the abiding condition to break the interest of the appellalt/bank and Sth respondent. Therefore, on these grounds the petitioners sought for review of the order in I.A.No.I of 2O2l in C.C.C.A.No.4 of 2021.

4. The appellant in the above suit and other respondent opposed the review petition.

5. Heard learned counsel lor the petitioner and counsel for the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while disposing I.A.No.l of 2021, this Court wide order dated 18.07.2022 stayed the operation of the judgment in O.S.No.9 of 2003. Though the suit was decreed on costs, no condition for payment/deposit ol the costs was imposed \ , 4 ss8x, \, LA,No.Iol2022 t^ c.c.c.A,No.4 ol2021 by ordering the stay. A sum of Rs.2,13,628 l- was paid towards costs to the suit. Therefore, the same could have been incorporated 1n the order while suspending the operation of the judgment in O.S.No.9 of 2013. Learned counsel further submitted that in the light of the grounds urged by the petitioner, there is necessity to review the order. Howerrer, learned counsel for respondent/ appellant fairly conceded the submission of the petitioner about the costs, but opposed the remaining prayer on the ground tl-rat unless there is an apparent error in the order no revierv can be entertained. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the request of the petitioner for review of the order in I.A.No.l of 2O2l is maintainable, can be allowed at this stage ?

8. POINT: As could be seen from the grounds under which the I resent review is filed, except with regard to the condition for deposit of costs, the other prayer, as rightly argued by the counsel for the respondent, there is no apparent error, ,\ 5 ssRlY, ., LA.No.1 of 2022 l^ C.c.C,A.No.4 ol2o21 which can be reviewed in a petition filed under Section 114 C.P.C. It is a fact that the trial Court decreed the suit with costs. Therefore, in view of the representation by the respondent, the request of the petitioner with regard to incorporati.on of the costs in the stay order can be considered. But there a-re no grounds to consider the other prayed in the present review.

9. In the resuit, the review is partly allowed. The earlier order in I.A.No.7 of 2O2l dated 18.07.2022 is modified as follows: "ln the result, the petition is allowed subject to appeilant depositing suit costs within (4) weeks from the date of this order. The remaining portion of the review is dismissed without co sts. "

10. As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed. // TRUE COPY // To SD/- K.. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT BEGISTRAR T SE ICER

1. The X Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad 2. The General Manager or Recovery Officer, A.P. Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd, Sheza Estates, Nizamshahi Road, Hyderabad. 3. C.Nageshwara Rao, S/o. Seshaiah, Occ: Business, Rl/o. Plot No. 56, Siddartha Nagar, Vengal Rao Nagar, Hyderabad - 38.

4. One CC to Sri Srikanth Had Haran, Advocate(OPUC) Er\^^ HIGH COURT SSRNJ DATED: 03-11-2022 ORDER REVIEW IA.NO. 1 OF 2022 IN IA.NO. 1 0F 2021 IN cccA.No. 4 0F 2021 DIRECTION ."s\l' P2 > + I ,1 ir,-"ir ,l