Smt. Shilpa Sindol v. M/s Vikarabad Pulp and Paper Mills P Ltd

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay the impugned order dated 23-09-2025 in l.A. No. 1407 of 2025 in A.S. No. 40 o'f 2025 on the file of Honourable Vl Additional District Judge, R.R. District at Kukatpally and all further proceedings during pendency of above Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. D S DIVAKAR Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER THE IION'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHlr ]TACHARyA CTYIL REVISION PETIT ION NO.3853 2025 '? \fr. D.S.D1!,akar BhaLi:r, Icarncd crrnnsel appcaring for thc petitic,.e ORDER:

1. The Civil Revision Petition arises out r I an order dated

23.O9.2025 in I.A.No. I4O7 of 2O2S in A.S.No.4O of I Ct25 passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fz nily Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

2. The impugned docket order r,vas passcd in I A.No. 1407 of 2025 fiLr:d by the pctitioner herein on 3O.OT .2025 under. ( rder XLI Rule 5 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking siay c.f the judgment and dccree passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Jud,; cum X Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranga Reddy Distr r t at Kukatpally on

30.06.2025 rn a Suit in O.S.No. 134 of 2018 fileci )y the respondent company for eviction and mesne profits against the 1,t 3. By the in'rpugnecl docket order dated 23. Litioner. t9.2O25, the Trial Court disposed of tl're I.A by imposing conditions on he petitioner. The impugned orclcr reflects the grounds taken by the pe itioner for seeking stay of the decree. The Trial Court duly considered tt : submissions and opined that stay can be granted subject to the petitic rer depositing hatf of the mesne profits out of the arrears of mesne proli to September, 2025. The petitioner was to m:l s from 13.02.20 18 e the deposit by 2

06.ll.2025andContinuetodeposithalfoft}temesneprofitsof Rs.25,000/- per month to the credit of the Appeal by the 10th of every succeeding month ti1l the disposal of the Appeal' To clarify the factual situation' the petitioner herein was the 4. delendalrr in a Suit filecl by the respondenl company for evict ion and mesne profits. The Suit was decreed in favour of the respondenl company/ plaintiff on 30.06'2025' The petitioner filed the I'A for stav of the judgment ar-rd decree on 30 'O7 '2025 ' The impugned order records that the Suit was decreed in 5. favour of the respondent company/ plaintiff by directing the petitioner/ defendant to vacate the sult schedule property within slxty days of the decree and pay the mesne profits at the rate of Rs'25'O00/ 'possession' The per month from 13.O2.2018 till the date of delivery of impugned order further records that the petitioner's argument for stay of the decree dated 3o.o6.2025 involved questions regarding the valuation of the Suit and the court fees paid by the respondent/ plaintiff in the Trial court which could only be considered in the Appeal hled by the petitioner from the said decree i'e'' A'S'No'4O of 2025 ' The impugned order a-lso clarifies that the factual position of the 6. petitioner, being the wife of one of the Directors of the respondent company, continued to reside in the Suit schedule property (house owned by the respondent company) even after her husband had left the house. The Tria-l Court accordingly records that the petitioner hence 3 continued to reside in the house ou'ned by the responi as a spouse of one of the Directors of the company anc hling of the Suit by the respondent/company' the pc' (a Director of rhe respondent compally) u'as nut residi' This Court does not find any error in the ' re:' s 7 . thc irnpugned ordcr. In fact, the Trial Court impose'l petitioner for stay of the decree in terms of Order XLI 5{5) ol The Code of Civil Procedure, 19O8' In any : sought to be raised by learned counsel for tl're acljudicatcd in the pending Appeal fried by the petilio I :r' :r-rt comPanY onlY as on the date of tion-er's husband 1 in the house. rning reflected in conditions on the hle 1(3) and Rule 'ent, the question retitioner can be C.R.P.No.3853 of 2025, along with all conrlr:ted applications' B. is accordrnglS' dismissed. There shall be no order as 1( oosts' //TRUE COPY// SD/. U.SUDHA ASSI],TANTRE":P { ,-..,- \ . ;ecrott oFFlcER To, lTheVlAdditionalDlstrictandSessionsJudge.cum-FamilCourtR.R-District ai f<uiatpattv Ranga Reddy District

2. The Junior Civil Judge, RR District at L B Nagar' 3 One CC to SRl. D S DIVAKAR Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies PKOSI w- i I ! I I : : i i l : I l 1 l I I l ) 1 i l i i I i I I I I I I t i I i i I I I I I i HIGH COURT DATED:21 11112025 ? CRP.No.3853 of 2025 ,,,. ;.4: 2 I ,i:[i ffiff .? ;<:i . :.:*:.:,.j' CIVIL REVISION PEITITION lS DISMISSI: D \ar- r*t(nI \+,- 4(il'