Srikanth Bolla v. state of Tetangana, Rep by the principal

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order in LA.No.708 o'f 2017 in 1.A.No.196 ol 2017 in O S.No.119 of 2017 on the file of Hon'ble '1"t Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, pending disposal of the CRP. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 permit Mr.Konakanchi Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Konakanchi Anjaneyulu, aged 49 years, Occ. Govt Employee R/o. Flat.No. 107 Monarch Apartment, Balajinagar Colony, Road.No. 6, Mohan Nagar, Kothapet, R.R.District to irnplead as party Respondent No.2 in C.R.P.No.5997 of 2017. IANO:2OF2 018 Between: N. Dhan Raj Goud, S/o. Veera Swamy Goud, Age: 48 years, Occ. Head Constable No. 521, Communication Department, O/o. Administrative Office, Police Training Centre, (PTC) Amberpet, Hyderabad. R/o. Flat No. 108 and 106-8, Monarch Apartments, Balaji Colony, Road No.6, [\/ohan Nagar, Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District. AND ...Vacate Petitioner ^Residency/Apartments Flat Owners Welfare Association, Reg. No. Morta rctr. 'Nara"yana 1O7112016, rep. by lts General Secretary, G.sudhakar Rao S/o. Swamy _Age. -60 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/ o. H. No. 1-1-297, Ftasi ,C, Block, 'B' Monarch Apartments, Balaji Colony, Road No.6, Ivlohan Nagar, Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District. 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 stay passed in C.R P.M,p.No7744 of 2017 in C.R.p.No.5997 of 2017, dt. '10.1 1 .2017 , in the interest of justice. ...Res pondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. C. padmaja Counsel for the Respondent: Sri K. Gani Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI c. .P o.5997 of 2017 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been flled by the petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 19'07 '2017 in I.A.No.7OB ot 2Ol7 in I.A'No'196 of 2017 in O'S'No'119 of 20t7 on the file of the I Additional lunior Civil Judge' Ranga Reddy District' at L.B. Nagar.

2. Heard Smt. V' Padmaja, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and Sri K'Gani Reddy' learned counsel for the respondent/defenda nt. 3. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff' who filed the suit seeking recovery of amount of Rs'95'400/- with 24olo interest per annum with costs from the respond ent/defe nd a nt'

4. BrieflY stated the relevant facts are that the owner of two (2) flats in the plaintiff's respondent/defendant was the apartment and as per the by-laws, the plaintiff-association had raised demand for maintenance charges' However' as the respondent/defendant failed to pay monthlY maintenance, the petitioner had filed the suit for recovery of dues' During pendency of *',-t i i i l_ 2 maintenance cha rges. the suit, at the instance of praintitF I.A.No.1g6 0f 2077 was rired for payment of monthly maintenance and the trial Court has directed the pay Rs.600/- per month towards respondent/defendant to However, the respondent/defendant contending that they would not have security for the amount, if paid to the association, sought for direction of the Court to deposit monthly maintenance charges in the trial Court, subject to the entitlement determined in the suit. The trial Court vide impugned order had permitted the respondent to deposit the amount in the Court's account as prayed for by the respondent. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner had contended that the impugned order has been passed without there being notice and the association is entired to receive the maintenance amount from the flat owners. The trial Court by disregarding the legal position and without notice on the revisioner/respondent allowed the to deposit the maintenance amount in the Court's account and it rendered the order in I.A.No.196 of 2OU ineffective. Furthermore contested that the Hon,ble Division Bench of this Court in Bollant Industries pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Managing ?:n", Srikanth Bolla v. state of Tetangana, Rep by the principal respondent/defenda nt 3 Secretary and othersl in W'P'No'499o of 2024 held that as per Section 21 of the Telangana Apartments (Promotlon of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987, (hereinafter'the 1987 Act') the Apartment welfare Association is entitled for collecting maintenance charges' Thus, the trial court has grossly erred in passing the impugned order and prayed for interference.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant had contended that basing on the impugned order, the respondent/defendant is depositing the maintenance charges in the trial Court's account and there is no default. Further asserted that the revision petitioner has not made out any tenable ground for intefference' 7 I have carefully perused the material on record ' It is in agreement that in I'A'No'196 of 2Ol7' the trial Court 8. has directed the respondent/defendant to pay Rs'600/- per month towards the maintenance charges' In the impugned order' the respondent/defendant has been permitted to deposit the maintenance charges in the Court's account' In the given circumstances, the aspects for determination 9. would be whether the impugned order was passed without notice to ' 202+ scc onLine TS 404 4 the revision petitio n erl respon dent there is any impropriety in the impugned order?

10. On the first count, the preamble of the impugned order is reading that learned counsel for the respondent was present and that the order was passed in his presence. It is also pertinent to note that generally, the interlocutory applications pending suit would be filed only after service of notice on the other side and on even Court would insist such service. Having regard to the general practice and clear mention about the presence of learned counsel for the respondent in the impugned order, this Court finds no substance in the contention that the order was passed without notice.

11. In regard to propriety of the impugned order, in Bollant Industries (supra) the Hon'ble the Division Bench of this Court had considered the contention and affirmed the constitution validity of the Section 21 of the 1987 Act. This provision prescribes that the Manager or Board of Managers of an Association of apartment owners may, after due notice of not less than seven days, for just and sufficient cause, cut off, withhold or in any manner curtail or reduce, any essential supply or service enjoyed by an apartment owner. Thus, this authority in no way substantiating the petitioner's plea that, direction of the Court to deposit the maintenance charges into 5 the Court account pending the suit is bad and unsustainable' In that view, no illegality is found in the impugned order' 1A For the aforesaid reasons no merit in this revision petition ' Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed' However liberty is granted to the revision petitioner to avail appropriate remedies available under law. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any' shall stand closed. sd/- MO HD. ISMAIL AS IST NTR EGISTRAR I/TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER d v, District,atLBNagar To,

1. 2. 3 4 H: :i r :iii ti"ffi fii U;ii:xjts'"'"r'' Two CD CoPtes kam/DL & I I I HIGH COURT DATED:0510212025 ORDER CRP.No.5997 of 2017 .\ t: u^) 3 0 APn 2B?5 i' '/l A.1 a +t + DISMISSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION iN{ 0 1L