The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant suspension of the direction in the Judgment and Decree dated 08. 07. 2025 passed in M. A. No. 26 ol 2025 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad whereby the Petitioner was d irected to pay 30% of the amount demanded in the Distress Warrant daled 24.02.2O25 within one month from the date of Judgment. Counsel for the Appellant :SRI KISHORE RAI representing MS. DIVYA RAI SOHNI Counsel for the Respondents : SRI M ARUN KUMAR The Court delivered the following: Judgment HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal No.2O of 2O25 JUI'GMENN The present CMSA is filed aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 08.07.2025, passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad, in MA.No.26 of 2025, whereunder and whereby the learned Judge while allowing the appeal flled by the appellant herein directed the appellant herein to pay 30% of the amount demanded in the impugned Distress Warrant dated24.02.2O25, within one month from the date of Judgment.

2. The appellant herein is the appellant and respondents herein are respondents in the MA.

3. The factual matrix of the case in nut-shell, which led to frling of the present CMSA is that the appeilant filed MA.No.26 of 2025 under Section 282 of the GHMC Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as the Act, 1955J against the Distress Warrant dated

24.02.2025, vide PTIN No.10515O3569 in respect of the properly bearing door No.15-I-678/3 & 4, situated at Gosha Mahal road, Hyderabad. The grievance of the appeliant is that the respondent Corporation has issued Distress Warrant dated 24.02.2025 by I LNA, J CMSA.No.20 of 2025 revising the: p,roperty tax of the subject property, exorbitantly, from Rs.2O,O46l- p.a. to Rs. 16,29,868/-, withor-rt following the procedure prer;cribed under the Act which mandates issuance of notice before revising the tax. Further, tlre respondent Corporation lailed to consider the represen tations dated

20.03.20 1 8, 26.O2.2Ol9, 03.O2.2021, Io.o2.202'.2, 06.o3.2023, 1O.03.2024 and 20.O2.2O25 submitted by the appellant challengrng the enhancement of property tax.

4. The appr:llate Court allowed MA.No.26 of 2425 vide impugned ordr:r dated O8.O7.2O25 setting asidt: the distress warrant dated 24.O2.2025 and remanded the matter to respondent Corporation to assess the tax of the scheduie property afresh, in accordance with the procedr-rre laid down under GHMC At:t, by duly affording opportunity to the appellant, subject to the aopellant paying 3O% of the amount demanded in the impugrred distress warrant dated 24.02.20125, within a period of one lrLonth from the date of Judgment. Aggrieved by the same, preserlt CMSA is frled.

5. Heard Sri Kishore Rai, leamed Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. Divya Rai, learned counsel for the appellant on / -! LNA, J CMSA.No.20 of2025 record and Sri M.Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellate Court harring held that the distress wa.rrant dated 24.02.2025 as illegal and arbitraqr, ought not to have directed the appellant to pay 3ooh of the amount demanded in the impugned distress warrant. He further submits that the appellate Court has not assigned any reason while imposing unreasonable condition on the appellant. He further submits that prior to issuance of distress u,arrant, the appellant has paid properfy tax @ Rs.2O,046/- p.a. up to 2O17-2OLB and also for the year 2OL9-2O2O. Since the respondent Corporation did not accept the amount, the appellant could not pay the same for the year 2Ol8-2O79,2O2O-2O21 to 2024-2025. He also submits that to show bonafides of the appellant, the appellant drawn cheques in the narne of Commissioner, GHMC, towards property tax for the assessment yea-rs 2OIB-2O19, 2O2O-2O21 to 2024-2025, and the original cheques were handed over to the Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. karned Counsel would submit that the appellant would ensure that the cheques are honoured on presentation by the respondent Corporation. \ 4 CLISA.No.z0 of 20;. 7 . Learned Senior Counsel would further sllbmit that the impugned order dated Oa.O7.2O25 of the appellate Court may be modihed by setting aside to the extent of imposing condition on the appellant to deposit 3O%o of the demanded amount in the distress warra:lt dated 24.O2.2025.

8. l,earned Standing Counsel for respondent= Corporation fairly submitted that the respondent Corporation would follow procedure as directed by the appellate Court and revise the property tax in respect of the subject propert-v b_rr dui1, giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

9. In the light of the above facts and circurnsttrnces and submissions rnade by the learned Senior Corrnsel for the appellant as w,:11 as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Corporation, CII{SA is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order insofar as imposing condition on the appellant to pay 30% o[ the demzinrled amount in the distress u'i rart dated

24.02.2025. The rest of the order remains unaltered. The respondent Corporation is directed to follow the mandatory procedure conte.Tlplated under Sections 221 to 223 of the Act to revise the tax and pass appropriate orders within a period of 5 LNA, J CMSA.No.20 of2025 three months from ttre date of receipt of a copy of this order by duly affording opportunity of hearing to the appellart. Pending miscellaleous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SN/- MOHD.ISMAIL OE-P_UTi REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY/I SECTION OFFICER I " i l["i ii r[iiii'fri ffi',^3tri]:;Hil"j?i[.3i'

4. Two CD CoPies ADK/PSL VY HIGH COURT DATED:3'! !0712A25 JUDGMENT CMSA.No.20 of 2025 /z/ l'. ' t 1[ [tI 2$25 i' DISPOSING OF THE CMSA G-**L k"