The High Court · 2025

Mr.Raghavendra Allam, S/o A. Sivaraj, Occ Software, Aged about 35 yrs, Rep. by his GPA Holder Vellala Rajasekhar, R/o Flat No.201, Sadguru Nivas, Plot Nos.2(r4 and 205, Western Hills, Near Western llills Comriunity Hall, (Addagutta) Street No.9, Opp. JNTU, Kukatpaily, Hyderaoad - 5OO 085. Karnati Rartakrishna, S/o Late K.Viswanatha Rao, Ageri bbout 21 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o Flat No.303, Sadguru Nivas, Western Hilk;, Near Western Hills C_olmynity Hall, (Addagutta) Street No.9, Opp. JNTU, Krkatpaily, Hyderabad -500 085. Mrs. Gudimella Kavitha, Wo G.Ramana, Aged 44 yrs, Occ Housewife, R/o Flat No.305, Sadguru Nivas, plot No.204 and 205, Western Hills, Near Western H lls Community Hail, (Addagutta) Street No.9, Opp JNTU, Kukatpally, liyderabad - 500 085. Mr.Vegesna Ravi Kumar Raju, S/o Ramadurga Raju, Aged 3.1 yrs, Occ Running Men and Women Hostels, R/o Flat No.204 anc 204, Western Hills, Near Western Hills Community Hall, (Addagutta) Street No.9, Opp. JNTU, Kukatpally, tlyderabad - 500 085 Mr.Vegesna Ramdurga Ra1u, Sfo B. Bangaraju, Aged 59 yrs, Occ Running Men and Women Hostels, R/o Flat No.205, Sadguiu Nivas, plot No 204 ani 205, Wester.r Hills, Near Western Hills Community Hall (Addagutta) Street No.9, Opp. JNTU, Kukatpatty, Hyderabad - 500 085. ... Respondents/Petitioners 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 vacate the interim stay orders granted in LA. No.2 of 2022 in above CRP No. 2702 of 2022 on 23-12-2022 Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Y. Balaji Counsel for the Respondent: Sri P. lndra Prakash The Court made the following: ORDER 'I'IIE HON'BLE SRI .IUSTICE'I" VINOI) I(t,MAIT CML REVISION PEI'ITION No.2702 <tt2022 ORDER 1'he present Civil Revisiorr Petition is prel'crr'cd against thc order dated 22082022 in t A No 4l ol 202 I in ().S No 04 ol 202 t passed by the tll Additional District and S,:ssions Jtrdge- Cunr- ll [V etropolrtan Sessions .[udge-Currr -Prirrcipal l;arnily Juclgc, Kukatpalll,, Medhcal-Malkalgiri District ) SLrit i Thc revision petitioners herein arc the delerrrlarrts irr the rnain 1'hc respondent lrclein lilcd the srrb.jcct suit a:; plalrrtrff vrrltr No. 4 of 202 I rurder Order VII Rule I r/rv Sectlor.r 2(r of CPCI lbr recover y of darnages

4. 'Ihc reSpondcnt herein lrad filcd art ittterloctrtorl applicatiorr vide l.A. f ,lo. 4l of 2021 in O S No 04 ol 202 I utrdcr' Order 38 I(ule 5 r/w section 151 olCivil procedure Code (lbr short'CPC') to call upcn the petitioners lrerein for firrrrishing seculity against tlrc suit arrount ol Rs.2,13.46,1751- (Rupees -frvo crorcs I'hir-teerr lakhs forty-sir thousand one hundred and seventy Iivc orrlyI 2

5. The parries are rcfbrred to as per their position in the present revlstoll petrttotl

6. The brief'lacts of the case are that the respondent herein is a retired eurployee of HMT Lirnited and the absolute owner of plots bearing Nos. 204A and 205A (each adrneasuring 400 sq yards) situated in Western Ilills (Addagtrtta Cooperative Housing Society Ltd ), Ktrkalpatly, Ranga Reddy District; that the respondent had acquired the saure throLrgh rcgistered sale deeds in the years 1996 and 2008 and constrtlcted a rcsidentral-cum- commercial complex on thc said property alter obtairrirlg reqtrisite LJLC clearances and BPS/LRS pertttisstons '7. It is lurther the case ol the rcspondent that in the said building the ground and flrst flotlrs werc spocifically designated and constructed lor non-residential ptrrpose; that between the years 2012 and 2013, the petitioners pLrrchasctl the respeclrve flats in the respondent building i.e, petrtloner/defendant No l ptrrchased l"lat No. 201 through a registered sale deed dated 06.042013, petitioner/defendant No.2 ptrrchased lilat No. 303 through a registered sale deed dated 20 04.2012, petrtioner/dcfendant No 3 \ 3 purchasec Flat No 305 through a registered sa le dccd dated l5 02 20 I:1, arrd petitioner/delendant Nos. 4 urtd 5 .iointly purchased Flat No 205 through a registered salc dccd drrtcd t6 08 201i, and that all the above sale deeds are rcgistcrccl at the Sub-Registrar ()ffi ce, Kukatpally 8 Be brc the court below the resportdenl lurtlrcr corttettdcd that the p:titioners herein filed consulner conrplairrts against thc responderr bctbre thc District Clonsutner liotttttt, allepirrg rnisrepresr ntatirlrt about the nalure ol' constrttct tou. ltcreirt intcritn "r ordcrs wer e passed restraining the respottdent fionr [ettrrrg oul or sellirrg thc glorrnd and first floors of the building tottstructed by hirn. The petitioners lrerein filed a petition for appoittlrttent of Advocatc (lornmissioner for verification of'physical catilres of'the building; irnd (hat the Advocate Cornrnissioner, aplointed by the court had cottfirnted that the protrnd and flrst []oors rvere conslructe( lor non-residential trse arld lacked duct svsletlts ,'vltich indicates residential occtrpation. On 06 03.2019, t te (lottstrttter ForLrnr disr risscd all the cornplaints, and tlte petition,:rs hcrein did not tlle anv appeals. However, due to the pendency uf'these ftrlse 4 cases, the resporldent sullcred a rental loss fiom lrlarch 2014 inasmuch as tlte prospective tenants, including reptltcd contpatlies such as Heritage, withdrew frorn enterrng into lease agreclnents owing to the strbsistence of rnlerirn orders -fhe trial ootlrt in the underlying interlocutory application 9 liled by the respondent vide I A No. 4l ol 202 I in O S No 04 ol 2021 issued the orders of warranl dated 22.08 2022 alnd directed tho petitioners hercin to firrnish the sectrrity of [{s.2,13,46, l'751' withrn 48 hours lrorn the receipt ol'thc sard notrcc ancl on [ailure to do so, the coLr( Bailiflwas directed to attach the Petitron Schedtrle Property. By observing as above, the trial Cotttl ltas allowed the I A No4l of2021in O SNo04 ol1021, arrd held that despite the conditional order passed, the petitioners neitlrer filed a countcr nor made any representation. Hence treated as uo cotlnter and rsstred attachment over petition scheduled property' Aggrieved by the above said order dated 22 08 2022 the l0 petitioners herein have preferred the prcsent Civil Revision Petition. ( t /' 5 -f, [lcrrrd Sri Y Balaji, lcarned couttscl lor thc 1'ctitiorters atrd I I Sri P. Incra Prakash, learned counsel lor the respondctlt attd peruscd tltt: rccord l2 Tltc pctrttoncrs contend that the -t'rial Court has failcd to apprcciatc the scope and ob.iect ol'Ordcr XXXVIII I{Lrle 5 CI'C' that thc irnptrgned order was passed withotlt anv pleadlllg or spccific rr',erlllcrlt in the trnderlyitrg interlocutr'rly 'rplllication to slrorv that thc pctitiotrcrs were attelnpting to dispose itl'ot rcrtlovc thcir assct: rvith an itttetlt to det'eat any prospecllve dccree; (lrat thc srrit itsell rs not based on any admitted liability or dcbt btrt is otrc sccking dittnages, rvhich ltrrther necessitates strict adhercnce to ptocedtrral salcguards' and that the Trial Court errccl in allowing tlrc applicirtiort (!r l)urte, without issuing the tlandlrttuy ttotice trr slrow caus: as contenlplated under Rule 5(l ) of- CP'-" thereby the pctitioncr-s wcrc denicd opportunity to colltesl thc relrcf'sotrgltt' l3 l lre pctitioners also contend that thc powet ttnder Ordcr XXXVIII Rulc 5 Ct'}C, being extraordinary and drsclctitrttarl ilt nature, nlt st bc cxcrcrsed with caution and only ttpt,tt tlte basis ol' clcar. cog:ut, and specihc averlnents' In tltc pre:;crtt case' tlte - ,!€*,'r?irw[: r I lMrkffiTl 6 respondent had lailed to specilically allcgo arry attempt by the petitioners to dispose olor alienate the suit propeh!, wltich renders thc invocation of such power unsustainable. Moreovcr, the application lor attachrnenl befbrc judgrncrrt r'vas entcflairted without relerring to the contents of thc written staternent filed by them, that the irnpugned order does not record any tinding that the pctitioners were causing delay or had acted itt a trtanncr preltrdicial to lhe proceedings. In sttclt circ r ttnstattccs, passirtg an ordcr of attachment without complying with the stilttrtory retlttireurettt alnouuts to violation o[ natural justice and results in gravo prejudice to the petitioners, warranting interference by this Corrrt. t4. Per contra, the respondent coutends that dtrc to the falsc and vexatious collsumer cornplaints liled by the pctitioncLs, cotrpled I wirh the interirn injunctions granted therein, he was trnlawfully reslrained fro rn letting out the ground artd fllst floors of thc building, whiolt were constructed fbr non-residcntral trsc, th:rt the said prernises remained vacant frorn March 20 l4 till the disposal ol the consumer cases on 06.03 2019, despite having reccived proposals fiom prospective comtnercial tenants, incltrding well- \ I 7 kttowrt r,:ta r I establishnrcnts such as Fleritauc Su terrnarkct who had e.rpr,:sscd lheir.rvillingness to pay rent at thc Late ol'{35/- per sq. fi tirr tltc ur.ound floor and {30/- per sq ft. fbr'thc first floor; and that orr ine to lhc pcrrdency of the lrtigatiotr rrnrl tlre interirn orders, all strch lease proposals were abandonel, rcsu lt in g IN strbstarrtial ancl contrrrrring financial loss t5 'l'lrt' ILespondcnt also contended that he has carelirlly ootnputed llre loss rrrcurled over the said peliod. urnoutrtirrg to {2,13,46.17-5/-.;111d srrltrnils that the salne is directlt attribu(able to the rvrorrlllirl corrducI arrd rnalicious litigation prrrsLrecl [ry tlrc petltioners. I)esgrrte rssuance oI legal notices dat,:d 06 03 2020 dernarrdinll corrrpcnsation. the petitioncrs have neitl er replred nor cottrpettsalcd thc rcsl-rotrdent. Hence, the present surt Ibr recovery ol'clartragcs \VAS filed and the underlying interlocutor1, application for lirrrrislrinq the sccuritv fbr the suit claiut ar-nount of Rs l.l3.16 l7-5,'- has becn soLrght; and that as tle pclitioners despite corrrl passing the conditional order did nct lirrnish tlre security, thc trrirl cotr( lras rrghtly dtrected Ibr attachrnenl of lhc properly bc lore .1 udgrrrcnt { 8 l(r. I have taken note of the respectlve contentions urged' 11 lt is perlinent to note that the tnain grievartcc raised by the petitioners in this revision petition, is that the trial court erred in passing an ordcr of conditional attachment under Order XXXVIII Itulc 5 CPC without issuing a prior notice to the petitioners as rnandatccl trnder Sub-rule I of the said provision However' Order XXXVIII tl,ule 5 ol the CPC, provides a ntechatristtt to procedtrral sat'eg,uard intended to prevent the clet-endant from dcleating thc realiz,ation ola decree by disposing o[or rctnovrng property during tltc pr:rtdencY ol'the s trit

18. tt is apt to relbr to sub-rule 3 of the Order XXXVlll rute 5' u.'hich reads as fbllows: r Or'tur X.Y.YI'lll ALe;Lbtfu!9jrldcue!-l 5. Where dc endat ma be called nish sectt ol' ptL4u!:laa)Ipawt$ (3) Ihe Ctntrl maY also in the (lItachmenl () lhe whole ran Order Llirct:t lhe conditiouq! v spett.f icd. llon o 19 A reading of Order XXXVIII Rutc 5(3) CPC indicates that the satne perrnits the Court to pass an order of conditional attachment even belore issr.riltg a show-cattse notice. In tlte present \ 9 casc, the'['rial Court. by order dated 22.08.2022 isstred a warrant and directed thc petitiorrers to [urnish security in a sutn of {2,1-1,46. 7,si- rvitlrirr ,1ll lrours fi.orn the time of receipt of thc notice 'I'lre (hrrrt tlrrthcr held that firilure to cornpl i willr thc said direction rvotrlrl restrlt irr attachrncnt ol the petition sche<ltrle property b1' the Courl Barlilf Therefbre, the order datcd

22.08.202.!- anrounts to ir corrditronal order nf atlachnrcnt, providing thc petitio lers ru ol)porlrrnitl' cither to lirrnish secur ity or to flle a couuter explairrLng rvhy sccurrly need not be furnished. ln the evcnt the petitiorrcrs had ltrr-nished tlre recluired security, the cortditional attachmenl would not havc takcn cfl'ect against th€ln

20. Thc Srrprcrnc Clourt in Rtman Tech & Proces.s [ittgg. Co v. Solanki Tr aclerst . l'rclcl "-[he 1t'trp,rr' ol ( )nlar .i,\ rlrrlc i ('l'(' t.s lo pret'cnl an) utlenll)l ott thc yu t ol tlrc dt.fL,ndutt trt d!feut tht execuliott r{ lhe Jecrec that nru1, ltt ltttt.sL'd usrrtt.tl lttn ll t il i.\ nol a provtston lct he invrtked lightll., ttr trtrcll .ftr tltc utkrng. 'f herc has to be ,r (otk rele foun<la'totr rn tht ltlttulrtrg:' :trltprtt-lcd hy maleriul rtt racord .shov,ttt,q tlttrt tha Llt.lemlunt t.\ utleml)ltng lo t emole or Lli.slto.tr' t{ lhe pt ())er/.t " t lzooa; z sc,: :oz I 10 2l . The Courts have also consistently upheld thc use ol corrditional attachrnerlt under Rule 5(3) CPC wherr there is a risk that tlre decrcc will be rendered nttgatory and if the cotrrt is satislled that thc delendant rnay dcf-eat the decree by alienating the propcrty, a conditiorral order of attachrnellt is ;ustitied. Tlte rcquircurenl of issuance of prior notice is not mandatory where the corrrl is actrng r.nr([er Rtrle 5(3) CPC 22 It is to be noted that the object ol the Order XXXVIII rule 5 ol CI'C rs to preve nt a cle t'e ndant lrom deleating thc execution of a prospoctrvc decrec by disposing of or retnoving their property beyoud the jurisdiction of the Court and where tltere exists a reasonable apprehension that the defendant is atternpting to alienate the property witlr an intent to obstruct or delay cxecution: thc Court is eurpowered to direct the defendant to frrrrtish security or order conclrtional attachlncnt. In the present case, having regard to the respondcnl's spcr;itic allegations, cotrpled with (he absence of rebuttaI by the petitiorters, prima lacie provide sufTicient basis fbr the trial Courl to invoke its .; urisdiction under Order XXXVIII Rute -s cP(' \ \ 11 23 It is furlher perlirlellt to rlote tltat, the cotlseqtrcnces of tron- cot-nllliatrctlorcotnpliatrccoftlrcdirectionsisstredtrrrtlerRtlle5of Order XXKVIII of C[)C vverc not contetttplated' lrtrt Rtrle 6 ol Order XX)(VIII of Cl'C deals rvitlr tltc sarnc, wltich r':ads thus 6J!!!!t:hnrytrt VIYrc c(ttt.\.'l!!)t :Irrltt r4st't 44l rtt .futtirlgd (t) IAl,ere tlrc tlafatttlttttt [trtl.t ttt shrllr tutrse vhv he :houkl nol fttrrrr.sl sectrt tl.y. rtr litils ttt litIrtr':h tht"tet'ttrill' rcquired rithitt the lime .fired h tha ( ()ut.l ll.rt' ( ('url td-l ttrder llrttt tl't lttrtltt'rl1' spect.fi ttl, trr sttt-lt ltttrltrttt lltt'rt'rtf ttt tqtlx'uts utfficieLt to '\(tlisfi' rttty tle t-et'vrhich ttttt.t hc Tttr'.'.tt'd rrt tht' sutl be alluchetl. (2) lt/bera the Llt'fcttlttttt .'ltrrrt t sttclr c{tuse ()t' fut'trr'shes the retlutrttl .\at:ttrtl)'. tttttl lltt' Jtrr4'crl.1 ;:1tr'tt'tfittl ot uttl p tttotr oI tl lns lxcn (tll(rcha(1, lht' (-otrrl shttll ortlcr lhe atlachnenl lt' he withdr'nvtr, rtr naka .utt]h olht'r rtrtk'r tt'i tt tht ks./il.

24. A conjoirrt lcaclirrg ol'tlrc above provisiorls ol \ule 5 and 6 of order )(xx vlll ol ('Pc nlakes il clcar that in rrn application filed undcr Or dcr XXXVIIt. Rrrlc 5 olCPC, the cornpetent Court rs ernpowererl to l)ass ()rdcr tln(lcr Ordcr XXXVlll, Rrlle 6 of C[)C' even though it is not spccit'icalll- lllentlolted tllerein Order XXXVIII, Rulc 6 ol'CPC eulporvers the contpetellt ('ourt to nlake an Order (rf attachlncllt absottlte, \'vlletl there is lailrrre to colnply with the drrectrons under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5(tXb) of CPC (See: Lluppalla Sanbasiva Roo V. Vemula Tirupathi Venkuitth2 ) 25 'l-hus, tlris Courl is of the considered view that the attachrnent order passecl by the trial court is not a flnal or absolute attachnlent, but is conditiortal in nature. The petittoners herein retain tlre righl to sltow causc or ftrrnish secrrrity, and may seek modilrcation or lecull belorc tlre tlial courI. Thcreforc, the impugned ordcr of conditional attachrnent under Order 38 Rule 5(3 ) Cl'C nertlrer intiinges tlre rrghts nor causes pre.iudice to the petitiorrers at (l) rs stagc

26. ln light of tlre fbregorng discussion, tlris Court is of the considercd vicr.v that thc Trial Courl has rightly directed attachrnent I over pctrtion sclredule properly. Consequently, this Court flnds no grounrl to intcrt'cre witlr thc impugned order in exercise of its supervisor.y jtrrisdictron Lurder Article 22'7 of the Constitution ol 2 MANTJ/AP/ l2e5/202 13 27 Fc,r thc above-utent iotted reasotrs, this Clourt rs ol'the view that the :rder of the trial Couft does uot sttf'fer liorn anl infirrnity or error 28 Ar:cordingly, the Civil Rcvision l)ctition is devoid of rnorit 't'he order datcd 22 08 2022 in L\ No '[ I of and is disrrrisscd 202I inr).S. No. 04 of202I is srrstainctl No ordcr as to costs Conscquerrtly, tnisocllatte otts petitiolls pcnding il any shall stand clcsed. No order as to costs SD/- A.PRAT REGTS HIMA TRAR To, //TRUE COPY// ^EEPUTY r i \ stcrror'r oFFrcER 1. The lll Adrlitionai District and sessions Judge-cum-llvl\4etropolitan sessions Judge-cum-Principal Family Judge, Kukatpally, Medchat-Malkajgiri District. 2. One CC to Sri Y. Balaji, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to Sri P lndra Prakash. Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies I Kam/PSL ld_).-- ,' 10 SEPg t- .--' 'r: S: ': i.t C trf -'_ -:-:/ -* '-i:-:: :-:=-7)'- I, :- / HIGH COUIRT DATED:2710612025 ORDER CRP.No.2702 ot 2022 DISMISSING OF THE CIVIL REVIIJION PETITION 6 Lolt lM'