Allowed

M/s. L.M.R. Constructions and another v. Koppula Venu Gopal Reddy

Telangana HC4 Mar 2021CRP/497/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision filed under Article 226 challenging an ex-parte interim attachment order. The High Court allowed the petition, directing the lower court to hear arguments within a week and pass final orders within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay on the attachment order; direction to the Additional District Judge to conduct a hearing within one week and pass final orders within four weeks; undertakings to be part of the record.

M/s. L.M.R. Constructions and another Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 70F 2020

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated.12.09.2018 passed in l.A.No. 607 of 2018 in O.S.No. 19 of 2018 by the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Kothagudem, Khammm District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

lt//s. L.il/.R. Constructions, KTPS Colony, Palvancha Town and Mandal, Bhadradri, Kothagudem, Khammam District, represented by its lvlanaging Partner Gaddam Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o. Ramakrishna Reddy, Rio. H.No.191-137, Shastri Road, Palvancha Town and Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District.

¶9

Gaddam Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o. Ramakrishna Reddy, aged 60 years, R/o. H.No.'19-1-137, Shastri Road, Palvancha Town and lvlandal, BhadradriKothagudem District.

¶10

...Revision Petitioner/Defendants

¶11

AND

¶12

Koppula Venu Gopal Reddy, S/o. Sriram Reddy, aged 43 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.11-1-71 Sri Nagar Colony, Palvancha Town and Mandal, BhadradriKothagudem District.

¶13

...RespondenUPlaintiff

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed in lA No. 607 of 2018 in O.S.No.19 of 2018 dated 12.09.2018 on the file of the V Additional District Judge Kothagudem, Khammam District pending disposal of the C.R.P.No. ol 2020.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

Between:

¶18

Gaddam lt/adhusudhan Reddy, S/o. Ramakrishna Reddy, aged 60 years, Fl/o. H.No.19-1-137, Shastri Road, Palvancha Town and lvlandal, BhadradriKothagudem District.

¶19

...Petitioner/Respondent

¶20

AND

¶21

M/s. L.Nt1.R. Constructions, KTPS Colony, Palvancha Town and IVIandal, Bhadradri, Kothagudem, Khammam District, represented by its Managing Partner Gaddam Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o. Ramakrishna Reddy, R/o. H.No.191-137, Shastri Road, Palvancha Town and Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District.

¶22

:,lX--,2'

¶23

2 Gaddam tvladhusudhan Reddy, S/o.^{Ramakrishna Reddy, aged 60 years,} Fl/o. H.No.1 9-1-137, Shastri Road,^{PalvanchaTown and lVandal,Bhadradri-} Kothagudem District.

¶24

... Respondents/Petitioners

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin the} affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^may be^{pleased to vacate the interim} suspension order^granted in C.R.P.No.497^{of 2020 daied.28.2.2020in the interest} of^justice.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI T. SUDHAKAR^REDDY

¶27

Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI PILLIX LAW FIRM

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{CHALLAKODANDA RAM}

¶30

CIVIL REVISION^{PETTTIONNo'497 of 2020}

¶31

ORDER

¶32

In this Civil Revision^{Petition, challengeis to the order dated12.09.2018} passedbytheVAdditionalDistrictJudge,Kothagudem,inl.A.No.60Tof2018in o.s.No.19 of 2018,^{attachingtheschedule property beforethe judgment,underorder} 38 Rule 5 and 6 of^{Code of Civil Procedure.}

¶33

Heard learned counsel^{for the petitioners/defendants,and Mohd.Nawaz Hyder} Ali, learned counsel for the^{respondent-plaintiff.}

¶34

Admittedly, the^{petitionerswere not afforded an opportunityof hearing before} making the impugned^order.

¶35

Having considered the^{respective submissions, and consideringtheaspect that} the impugned order^{was an ex parte order, on a suggestionmade by this Court'the} learned counsel for the^{petitioners/defendantshad come forward by filin9 an} Undertaking Affidavit^{before this couton behalf of thepetitioners/defendantsthat the} petitioners/defendants shall not alienate^{or createthird patyinterestsin the suit} schedule^{propertytill final ordersare passedin the I'A'No'607 of 2018'The learned} counsel further undertakes^{to filecounteraffldavit in the I.A. within10 days from} today,alongwithnecessarymaterialdocuments,ifany,withoutfail'Withinoneweek thereafter, the^{learnedcounselfor the respondent/plaintiff undertakes to file} rejoinder/reply to^{the counteraffidavit, alongwithmaterial documents'if any'}

¶36

within four^{weeksthereafter, thelearned v Additional District Judge shallpass} final ordersⁱⁿ the^{I.A.No.607of 2018.}

¶37

Accordingly, the^{Civil Revision Petitionis allowed'No costs'The Undertaking} Affidavit filed by^{the learnedcounselfor the petitioners on behalf of the} petitioners/defendants^{shall form pad of the order and record'Miscellaneous} petitions, if any^{pending,shallstand closed'}

¶38

SD/-M.MANJULA ASSISTANT^REGISTBAR ,TRUE COPY/I N/

¶39

To, 1 The V Additional^{District Judge, Kothaguael$.r11mm District} 2 One CC^{to Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy'Advocatgl-oiuut} o;; ac io^{sri pltti, Law Firm,Advocate[oPUc]}

4 Two CD CoPies sbr

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410312021

1 hY T4 r€i
(
I,
e"
o
(.) 23 MAB 2021
-t
i
o
PirT

¶44

ORDER

¶45

CRP.No.497 ot 2020

¶46

ALLOWING THE CIVTL REVISION PETITION

¶47

¶48

\DL|

M/s. L.M.R. Constructions and another v. Koppula Venu Gopal Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. L.M.R. Constructions and another v. Koppula Venu Gopal Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharanikonda Anand Vs M/s. Reliance Industries Limited

Kailash Chand Goel Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Coropration

Nimmagadda Krishna Mohan , Mohan Krishna Vs Chimalmoodi I,axmi Raja

Anumula Yellaiah, Vs Kannam Madhusudhan

Mohd Mujeebuddin, Vs Mohd.Fasi

M/s Pravah Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Represented Vs Budidi Bhaskar and 15 others