Axis Finance Ltd., Vs Sigilipelli Venkaiaramana

AXIS FINANCE LTD.,, AXIS HOUSE, GROUND FLOOR, PANDURANGA BUDHKAR MARG, WORLI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, PIN-400025 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON. PH02224252525.

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

SIGILIPELLI VENKAIARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE BODDU, DHARMAPURI, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN AND DISTRICT.

¶16

SIGILIPELLI PADMA GOURI, , AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O.VENKATARAMANA, DHARMAPURI, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN AND DISTRICT

¶17

SIGILIPELLI RAVI SHANKAR, , AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O. VENKATARAMANA, DHARMAPURI, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN AND DISTRICT

¶18

SIGILIPELLI NAVEEN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O VENKATARAMANA, DHARMAPURI, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN AND

¶19

2

¶20

VS,J CRP.No.1794 of 2026

¶21

DISTRICT

¶22

CLIX CAPITAL SERVICE PVT LTD, 4TH FLOOR, KAILASH BUILDING, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI-110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON. PH 911243302000. (PRO-FORMA RESPONDENT/ ORIGINAL DEFENDANT NO. 2)

¶23

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶24

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toabove-named Petitioner, who is the Original Defendant No.l, has filed the present Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition under 227 of Constitution of India of, challenging the order dated 13.03.2025 (Impugned Order) passed by the Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram (Ld. Civil Judge) in LA.No.l95 of 2025 (Application) in O.S. No. 29 of 2025 (Suif) inter alia on the following grounds

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶26

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 pleased to dispense with filing of the certified copy of the order dated 13.03.2026 in accompanying Civil Revision petition and pass such

¶27

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶28

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 may be pleased to grant an interim stay of all further proceedings in OS No. 29 of 2025 pending on the file of the Honble Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vizianagram pending disposal of the main Civil Revision Petition, in the interest of justice, and also

¶29

IA NO: 3 OF 2026

¶30

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 May be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 13.03.2025

¶31

3

¶32

VS,J CRP.No.1794 of 2026

¶33

passed in LA. No. 195 of 2025 in O.S. No. 29 of 2025 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vizianagaram, pending disposal of the accompanying Civil Revision Petition, and pass

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶35

1.THATHIREDDY ASHOK SRIVASTAVA

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

¶38

The Court made the following:

¶39

4

¶40

VS,J CRP.No.1794 of 2026

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the docket order 13.03.2025 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Vizianagaram in I.A.No.195 of 2025 in O.S.No.29 of 2025, filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Section151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), whereby, the Court below granted status quo.

¶43

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶44

The respondents/plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.29 of 2025 before the Court below seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and respondent No.5 herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondents/plaintiffs towards the plaint schedule properties. In the said suit, the respondents/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.195 of 2025 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of CPC, seeking temporary injunction against the petitioner and respondent No.5 herein with respect to the plaint schedule property. The Court below, vide order dated 13.03.2025 while issuing notices to the petitioner and respondent No.5 directed to maintain status quo until further orders. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.

¶45

Heard Sri. O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel and Sri. Varun Agarwal, learned counsel on behalf of Sri. T. Ashok Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notices were served on the respondents/plaintiffs, there is no representation on their behalf.

¶46

Perused the material available on record. Admittedly, in an application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of CPC seeking

5

VS,J

CRP.No.1794 of 2026

temporary injunction restraining the petitioner and respondent No.5 herein from interfering with the suit schedule properties, the Court below, vide the impugned docket order dated 13.03.2025 while issuing notices, granted status quo. However, it can be understood that the said order is an exparte order granted by the Court below prior to issuance of notice to the petitioner. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.292 and 293 of 2025 before the Court below in the month of May, 2025 with a request to vacate the status quo order dated 13.03.2025 (under ORDER XXXIX Rule 4 and under Section and 151 of CPC) and further to reject the plaint wholly (under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC). The grievance of the petitioner in the present revision petition is that though the petitioner filed the said applications way back in the month of May, 2025, till date no orders were passed.

¶51

During the course of arguments, though learned Senior Counsel raised several grounds, he limited his arguments by seeking a direction to the Court below to pass orders in the applications filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 4 and under Section and 151 of CPC and under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

¶52

Undisputedly, I.A.Nos.292 and 293 of 2025 in O.S.No.29 of 2025 were filed by the petitioner to set aside the docket order dated 13.03.2025 and to reject the plaint in its entirety, way back in the month of May, 2025. Admittedly, the said applications were filed after three months from the date of passing of the docket order dated 13.03.2025 in O.S.No.29 of 2025, however, the same were pending ever since. It is an admitted fact that because of pendency of several such applications before the Courts, it may seem difficult for the Courts below to finalize them within appropriate time, however, such exparte injunction orders, as in the present case, cannot be continued for an

¶53

6

¶54

VS,J CRP.No.1794 of 2026

¶55

indefinite period. As and when an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC is filed, the Court is bound to hear the same and pass a reasoned order within a reasonable period, without extending the exparte injunction order for an indefinite period, which admittedly is a serious threat for defendants.

¶56

In the circumstances, without going into the merit or otherwise of the said applications and considering the fact that the applications filed by the petitioner are pending consideration since May, 2025, the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vizianagaram is directed to dispose of the I.A.Nos.292 and 293 of 2025 filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 4, under Section 151 of CPC and under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC in O.S.No.29 of 2025, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶57

Accordingly, with the above direction, this civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶59

___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶60

Date:10.07.2026

¶61

Gss

¶62

Whether the order is : Speaking Yes Reportable No

Axis Finance Ltd., v. Sigilipelli Venkaiaramana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Axis Finance Ltd., v. Sigilipelli Venkaiaramana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Damarusingu Ramana

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Dandlamudi Venkateswar Rao

V.Subhashini, Vs State represented by Superintendent of Police

Dhulipalla Venkata Sundeep Vs Dhulipalla Talasila Yamini Satya

M.Eswara Rao, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport

B. Balaji Singh, Vs The Regional Manager