The High Court · 2025

...PETtTtONER/DEFENDANT No.5 UBR's Housinq and lnfra Dev_elopers LLp. a limited lrabitity partnership firm, 'i5id7iirzii, bearins LLp !D No AAM o50s hJvrng iti ,bsisiei;,"Joir,." ft N" i,.rglllgol Opp RTC Bus stand, rtr"rpati r"ow,i, Cniitoii, nnona pradesh,_ 517501, Represented by its designate<j partneiSri. A.'diiiO"O,

2. Sri. B. Giribabu, S/o. Venkata Busirressman, Rl/o-Villa No. 12, 500032 .._9*!TV Naidu. Aged 56 years, Occ Hrrr Ridge Vitlas. tSB Road, Gachibowli_ 3 4 6 Bathala Ho{sing and lnfra Developers LLp, a limited liability partnership Firm, 99fli!9 LLP rD No AAy-^8638, having its i"gi.[-,il orrice at" ir r.io 1316/7711?0, Ground floor. Opp^ RTC Aus" stanO, 'fffiati Town, Cniitoor, 'Represenied Andhra Pradesh- s1zs.i. rndia ov iii o"rig;,rt"d partner sri. B. Giribabu Vanga SSudheer Reddy (alias Sudheer), S/o Vanoa Bl ato,ii oi-veaii"oil;:ri .j; a,sne-ss- nio E;r".[" %oriirli*:ltftd%?: Near rockweit Schoot, Jubitee hiils Hyderabad iif"'"ij,iJ':500 033 VIS^{i:tg.n Verilures, an unregislered partnership firm Having its office a D.No 6-3-248tK, 301 Abhishek REliden_cy,' Roa; N;i: B;ni.iu"sir., iyo"raUJJ Represented by its partner Vanga SSudheJ neOOi -* '- lvlr. Vanga Siddharth Reddy, S/oSri .Valga $ylhger Reddy Aged about 37 years occ Business, Ryo H No^736/1/4 R;;d N; i7, N""i. fto"i*"fr Si-nooi, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad,500033. fetangana -

7. tr.4/s Sri Sai Balaji Developers (FRN No. 195t201 t), f)artnership firm represented by Mr_Lingamaneni Nagesh, S/o. Sri. K I,hna Rao, having its office at PIot No LIG -58, H.No. 6-9413119t58, Near Ete: .icat Sub station, LtG Phase- ll, IIUDA colony Chandanagar, Hyderabad , Tet: rgana 500050

8. Sri Palle Venkat Reddy, S/o P. Narayana Reddy \ge Unknown, Occ Business, R/o H. No. 8-2-31O18t35. Nandi Nagar, Rcial No 14, Banjara hills, Hyderabad

9. Sri Palle Manrnohan Reddy, S/o P. Venkat Reddy Agec about 67 years, Occ Business, Rio. Plot No 8- 2-310/8/35, Nandi Nlgar t oad no i4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500034

10.Palle Sanle_etha Reddy, S/g P Manmohan Reddy Agei about 59 years, Occ Business, R/o Plot No. 8-2-3.10/B/35, Nandi Nalar,- F r ad, No. 14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500034 1 1. Suryakumar Sikha, S/o S.B.V Rao Aged about 61 yea': , Occ Business, Rl/o Amruthd Va ey, Road I. r 12, Banjara Hi s, Flat no. 1 12,- Hyderabad -500034 -B-u,khingham, 12 Sikha Shanlhi, S/o Suryakumar Sikha, Aged about 5[t \ 3ars, Occ Business, R/o Flat No 1 1 2, Buckingham, Amrutha-Valley Roart i o 12. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500034. '13. Pinnamaneni Vishnu Vardhan Rao, S/o p. years, Occ Business, Rl/o Flat No. 555, Hyderabad Veeraraglr" ; yya Aged about 59 Lekha P'.,. r. S',nagar Colony,

14. Pinnamaneni Sridevi, W/o P. Vishnu Vardhan Rao, Agr: I Business, R/o FIat No.555, Lekha Ptaza, Srinagar Col-o:ry 15 Rudraraju Srinivas Raiu, S/o Sundara Rama Raiu. Aoe,r Business, R/o Flat no'. 404, Tirumala Gardens, Nav'e,. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad -500034 abolrt 54 years, Occ Hyderabad rbout 57 years, Occ Nagar, Road No 1, '16 Rudlaraju Syjatha, w/o Srinivas Raju, Aged about 47 | R/o Flat no 404, Tirumala Gardens, Nave-en Nagar, Ro: c Hyderabad -500034 :ars, Occ Business, No 1, Banjara Hills, 17 Madunuri Soma Raju, S/o M. Satyanarayana RaJU, Aqe(l Business, R/o Ftat i,,lo. 206, Sard'a Apariment -2', Naiet,r Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034 (Respondents N( necessary parties in this instant Appeal) rbout 41 years, Occ Nagar, Road No.1 , 4lo 17 are Not ...RESPONDEII .S/RESPONDENTS (Respondents No 4 to 17 are Not necessary parties in th s insta nt Appeal) lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the ( i lumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitron, the High Court ray be pleased to suspend [he orders dated 23rd September, 2025 passed in | \ No i297 of 2025 in OS No 442 of 2024 on the file of the XXV Additional Ct i ,f Judge, City Civit Court at Hyderabad, pending disposal of this present Civil t\4i; ;ellaneous Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri K. Vivek Reddy rep. Sri C. SunilAnand Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: Sri A. Venkatesh rep. Sri K.V. Rusheek Reddy The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTA,: TIARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KI' I{AR CML MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.413 OI' 2()25 \lr K \ i|r'k Ilccldr. lerr-necl Scrior Clounsr:l rcprcscnling Mr'.1.1 Lrlil Anirn.l, Ir itinlil r'ourrsrrl .rl)PlrilLng li)i tlrc ilppellant. \lr.A \cnl(a1('sh, learned counscl rePresenting Mr.l(.V. RLrr rcck lleddr', lcarnt rl r:ounscl appc:rring for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/ plainl I s. JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Juslice Moushumi Bhatt.rcharya) L. Learned cor-rnsel appcaring lor the rcspondc r , Nos.1 tc) 3/pl:riirLiffs argucs Lhat the appeal is not maintalri blc rn thc lacc ol' Orcicr ,13, Rule 1(q) of the Code o[ Civil Pnrcr:, urc, l9O8 ( Cl)C'). u hrch onlr itllou,s ordcrs passcd undcr Rulcs l.3or6ol ()rr1('r .1,3 ol- tlrr: CI)C to bc challcnged in appeal. .rr ::orcling to c:otrnst l, thc irnpr-rgrrcd l)ocket Ordcr datr:d )3 09.'2L 25 passed in [.A No. 1 297 ol 2025 in O.-s.No.442 ol 2025 l'r thc XXV ,\clclitronal Chrcl .lririgc, City Civil Courl , I[1.'der-.1 racl ('l'ri.rl (lotrrt') s':rs passeci uncler Order 38 Rule 5 ol' tl-re Cll) I u,hich is not appc:,rlablc in light of thc cxpress cxclusion rf appcals irqirirrsL orclers p:rsscd under Order 38 tlurle 5 of tl'rt 3 PC give n rt tl , .rt.rtt srrirl 1rr, ,r'isirrn. ). Lcamcd Scnror Counsel appcaring appcll;rntlclclbncl:Lnt No.5 counlcrs b), urging that th I irlpugned l)ockct Orcicr rcc.rds that the ordcr u,as passecl I rth rlnder Rulc 5 as r",ctl as r_rnder llulc 6 of Order 38 of the ,_ )C, hcncc 2 rendering it appcalabie. Leamcd Senior Counsel also informs thc Court that the defendants havc taken sLcps to r.l,ithdrau, the CRP tiied [.;cforc a leamed Singlc .Itrdge ol this Court

3. trven if rrre were to acccpt thc contenti()ns macic on beherlf of ihe reslrc,ndcnt t-{os.1 to 3/Lrlaintifls in 1a'*, the arilrmcnt cannoL tai<e av',,av the cpacity of the impugned Dockct Order. The impugnccl Dr,rckct C)rder docs not refleci any reasor-rs [or directir-ig thc dcfendan[.j in the suit in O.S.I.lo.zi42 ol 20,15 t fulnish sccurity e:quivalenl to the Suit <:lairn or to appcar:rncl show. cause as [o rn hy thcy shor-rlcl no], be dil'ccted to furni:;h sccurity, \4,ithill 43 hours irom thc ciatc of tirc sairl orcler, lailing $,hich, the deiendai.lts' llr:opcriy rvouici be altarclrccl. We a,rrr: primarily concerned vrith thc in-rpugncd Dockct Orcicr laiiing to give any reasons lor granLing r-clii:l in lavour- ol thc rcsuoncr,cnt Nos.1 l-o 3/plaintifls. '[']rr: l:rck of r(rasorls is sigrrificar:r. particularly since thc impugnccl Dockct Order is an ex pctrte rld intcrim ord.-:r.

1. Wc accordingly dccn'i it fit to set asidc tl-rc impugned i)ockct Ordcr clai:ed 23.O9.2025 passcd in I.A.No l'297 of 2C),5 in O,S.No.442 of 2,025 by ti-tc 1'rial Court.

5. C.\4.A.No.41ll o[ 2025, along r..,ith :rl1 c()rrtrccted applicatrons, is accordinglS' allot,ocl artd clisl,osed oi. Wc m:rkc 3 it cle:rr thal thc Trial Court shall hear both the p:r-l €rs beforc passing anl or.lcrs and thcre shall be no delal, on t te pzrrt o[ thc appell:l-rt/ clclc ndant No.5 in defending thc Suit in O.S.No.442 ol 2025. The Trial Court shall r:1 :cide the

1.A.No.1297 ol 2O2:t in O.S.No.442 of 2025 fi1ed by th: plaintiffs, by 10.1 1.2025. -lircrc shall be no order as to costs. SD/. (.SRINIVASA RAO . OINT REGISTRAR 6 IiECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The XXV Addrtional Chief Judge, City Civil Cou( at Hyder bad Z One CC to Srr C Suril Anand Advocate IOPUC]^ - ^. 5 O;; aC io srr x V Rusheek Reddv, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies VH-/S.\ b/ HIGH COURT DATED: 2811012025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.413 of 2025 ./t, .// .. ' i:rl i. "- 0 ., . \'. L M DISPOSING OF CMA 'i ,l', \! 'tr \i.r