The High Court · 2025

1. Sri.D.Prabhakar, S/o. Sri.Narayana, Aged 47 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Plot No.8, .Bhavani Nagar, Bandlaguda, Dandiaguda, Ahmadigude Gram Panchayat, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RespondenU RespondenUPlaintiff 2. State Bank of lndia, Banjara Hills Branch, Rep. by its Chief Manager, Office at 8-2-6011711, Road No.12, Hyderabad-500034. (Respondent No.2 is not necessary party to this cRP) ...RespondenU RespondenUDefendant No.1 lA NO: I OF 2025 petition under Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.86 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar during the pendency of the present revision in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRl. C KUMAR Counset for the Respondents: T SURYA SATISH The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.2790 of 2025 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 23.07.202s passed in I.A.No.205 of 2025 in O.S.No.86 oi 2ll4by rhe learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy'District, at L.B.Nagar (for short 'the impugned order').

2. Heard Mr.C.Kumar, learned counsel fbr the petitioners and Mr.T.Suya Satish, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

3. Vide the impugned order, the objection raised by the petitioners vide the said I.A. under Order VII Rule I I stood rejected.

4. The contention of the petitioner through the said I.A. was that the suit was not maintainable in the light of the provisions of the Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Acq2002 (for short 'the Act') and that the suit was barred by limitation invoking the provisions of the Act.

5. Be that as it may, the factual matrix of the case would go to show that the suit is one which was filed by the plaintif{.s seeking for a -t"'J r i I I i t I : ,'. ] r-a .+*+f{ !- \ \l 'i -.1 \i\ 2 decree against the defendants to execute a fresh sale certificate in respect of the suit schedule properly and also declaring the letter, dated 18.08.2007, as a forged and fabricated document as null and void; damages were also sought.

6. The suit was one which was filed as early as in January 2014 Notices were issued and defendant No.2 entered appearance and file their written statement again as early as in'January 2014 itself. Meanwhile, the suit proceeded, however defendant No.2 expired on

24.05.20 t7 and the present petitioners were impleaded as legal heirs as def'enclant No.3 to 5. The present petitioners/delbndant Nos.3 to 5 has also adopted the written statement filed by the clefendant No.2 and continued with the suit.

7. The issues were framed and the documents were also marked Plaintifll got themselves examined and the eviderice was closed on

27.09.2024. Subsequently, petitioners/defendant Nos.3 to 5 filed their affidavit under Order l8 Rule 4 as the examination in chief and the rnatter was posted for the cross exarnination qf the defendants, but abruptly, the present I.A. has been filed raising objection under Order VII Rule I l. It is this application which has been rejected by the trial court viclc the irnpugned order. I ::3::

8. The contention of the petitioners is that the trial court has failed to properly appreciate the judicial precedents laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court flowing tiom the provisions of the Securitisation And Reconstruction Of, Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act,2002, particularly touching the jurisdiction and maintainability of suit itself.

9. I{orvever, the trial court has found the aforesaid factual matrix \ as narrated in the preceding paragraphs so far as the written statement I of the defendant No.l being on record since 2014 and defendant Nos.3 to -{ subsequently have also adopted the same written statement and the suit also meanwhile procecded. Further, after impleadment of ( { the petitioners also the suit have travelled a long rvay and above all, the objections raised by the petitioners are all mixed que.stion of facts .1 and law and which require a proper trial to determine the same.

10. This Court is quite convinced with the findings given by the trial court in the aforementioned factual backdrop where the suit is pending since 2014 now being asked to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability under Order VII Rule 1 l. The said objection can otherrvise be framed as an issue, since it touches the jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit, it is expectecl that the trial court would take t:4:: up that issue first while deciding the other issues ard only in case if required should the trial court venture further and decide the suit on its own merits. ll. ln view of the same, this court is not inclined to interfere with the irnpug,ed order and accordingly, this civil revision petition is I I rejectecl. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications panding if any, shalr stand closed. SD/- K. AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER /TRUE COPY/ To. '1. The X Additional District and sessions Judge' Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar ', B[: :g] Stl . ? $;il3'st:fl:x's,8j,',"%Pucl 4. Two CD CoPies' Y;R /sa I HIGH COURT DATED i24110t2025 ORDER CRP.No.2790 of 2O2S e.( ,C '2 A ucv 46 Tctr r.'a ) l CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS REJECTED. 6 Yl Jp I'r