The High Court · 2025

M/s shriram city union finance rimrted, Nizamabad-rts branch, now present r9p Uy its augthorized signatory and power of attoreny hold'er Mr. A Mallikharjun s/o srinivas, age-36 years, senior Divisionar' Mangaer r/o N izamabad ...Petitioner/s lA NO: 2 OF 2O2S ...RespondenUs Petition under section 1 51 of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petitinn, the High cout;;t-b; pleased to stav of ail furrher proceedings in E.p.No.7 of 202t ii ARB.No.iii oi 2018 on the Fire of Honorabre ilr ADDTTONAL DrsrRrcr JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD- Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri. G. Rajeshwar Rao Counsel for the Respondent : Sri. N. Srikanth Goud The Court made the following : ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JuSTICE N' TUIIIRAMJT cwIL REVISIO IT PETITIolt No.67 of20Ls_ ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been fiied against the Sale Notice, dated 04'O6' 2024 in E'P'No'7 of 2O2l in Arbitration No.111 of 2018 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Nizamabad' 2 Heard Ms.Shaheena, learned counsel representing Sri G.Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for revision petitioners and Sri N'Srikanth Goud' Iearned counsel for the resPondent.

3. The revision petitioner No'2 is the Judgrnent Debtor No.2 in the Award passed by the Arbitrat()r Tribunal' uide Arbittanon Case No' 1 I I of 2O 18'

4. The case facts in brief are that the respondent- Company in its finance business 26lv2pr:e<1 loan of Rs. 12,OO,O0O/- on 29'O4'2015 to the revisi()n petrtloner No.1. Revision petitioner Nos'2 and I stood as In guarantors. Accordingly entered into an agreement' I I I I i I i: n t i I I I I 2 NTR,J cRP 51 2025 addition, ttre Revision petitioner No.2 had created securit5r of his prope rLy uide a registered deed, dated 29.O4.2OL5. The revision petitioner No. 1/principle borrower paid an amount of Rs.9,35,OOO/- and neglected to repay the remaining due of Rs. 12,55,O00/_. Whereupon, the respondent-Company initiated arbitration proceedings. The Arbitrator passed the Award against the revision petitioners holding them jointly and severally liable for the claim arnount. Thereafter, the Award was duly transmitted to the Court and in the Execution Petition i.e., E.p.No.7 of 2O2L the respondent-Company sought for attachment and sale of the suit schedule property which was furnished as security, for realization of the amount due. The Executing Court in the proceedings had attached and issued the impugned sale notice, which has been challenged in this revision petition.

5. The revision petitioners would contend that while revision petitioner No. I obtained loan, the respondent- Company got the signatures of the revision petitioner ^ t ; I 3 NTR,J cRI 67 2025 Nos.2 and 3 on printed formats and they nerrer stood as guarantors. F\trttrer, the respondent-Company intentionally initiated the Arbitration proceer lings within the jurisdiction of Hanamakonda' Warangal' whereas' the transaction and the residence of lhe revislon petitioners is at Nizamabad' The respondent-Company usuriously fixed ttre interest and monthly installments by clubbing the principle and the unpaid amount by including penal intere st @3o/o per month and even against dishonoured cheques' Further ' tht respondent- Company obtained ex parte Award and trre Executing Court, without considering these aspect:; has issued impugned sale notice' Hence' he prayed for interference'

6. Learned counsel for the responrlent-Company would submit that Executing Court has properly issued the sale notice and the Arbitrator on prop€r appreciation of the record. The revision petitioner No' I availed loan and revision petitioner Nos'2 and 3 stood its Guarantors' executed agreement and the revision 1'etitioner No'2 created security of his property under the r-egistered lt:O \ . |.\'.'1...141; ?z= - ?;-_i.. 4 NTR.J cRP 67 2025 and the Arbitrator in due proceedings in the presence of the counsel for the revision petitioners passed the Award. Thus, the contention that the Award was passed ex- parte or the claims were not considered by the Arbitrator is improper. He further pleaded that the Award was appropriately implemented by the Executing Court and after due notice to the revision petitioners and proceedings of the sale notice have been issued' As such, there is no illegality in issuance of the sale notice' He further pleaded that though the revision petitioners disputed the Arbitration Award' no appeal has been hled so far. Therefore, no tenable ground has been made out in the revision petition for interference'

7. I have perused the material on record'

8. At the outset, the Arbitration Award itself is indicating that the revision petitioners appeared before the Arbitrator through their counsel Mr'T'Narender Reddy. Further, the statements that the revision petitioners executed agreement and the revision l 't] t t I 5 NTRJ cRP_67-2025 petitioner Nos'2 and 3 stood as guarantors end revision petitionerNo.2createdsecurityofhispropertyandthe loan avajled by the revision petitioner No' 1 are not in dispute. However, the contention is that thr: signatures of the revision petitioners have been obtained by the respondent-Company on printed formats as 'vitnesses' g. Upon considering the unrebutted plea'ling that the revision petitioner No'2 had created security of the property under a registered deed and aftel passing the Award and due communication to the Executing Court for attachment of the Property' issualce of sale notice' is found proper. In addition' it also in agreement that the Award, basing on which the Execution proceedings were initiated, has not been challenged by the revision petitioners. That being the position' this ()ourt finds no illegality or tenable reason to say that the impugned sale noticeisunsrrstainableinanymanner.Ineffect,the challenge in revision petition shall fail on Inerit' 6 NTRJ cRP 6? 202s

10. For the aforesaid reasons, this Ci'/il Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil rerrision petition shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lllAdditional District Judge at Nizamabad. 2. One CC to Sri. G. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate. [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. N. Srikanth Goud, Advocate. [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies. e JS/PSL .-- - --;n*.*----,: HIGH COURT DATED .2710212025 t t ) ORDER CRP.No. 67 of 2O25 r:: -'' rf -,: '. '\ 'r I.. .- q 1 0 SEP 2025 THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS ot-t t