Allowed

Smt. Vasanta Manasseh v. M/s. Sarah Constructions

Telangana HC19 Apr 2022CRP/803/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision under Section 115 CPC against a docket order granting interim stay on a money decree conditioned upon deposit of costs and a portion of the decretal amount, the High Court rejected the plea for a blanket stay due to financial hardship. Instead, the Court allowed a stay if the petitioners deposited 7/8th of the decretal amount within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Stay of the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2020 granted subject to deposit of 7/8th of the decretal amount within 30 days.

Smt. Vasanta Manasseh Vs M/s. Sarah Constructions — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH^{DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEUJJALBHUYAN}

¶5

CIVIL REVISIO^{N PETITION NO: 803OF 2022}

¶6

petition under Section 115 of CPC aggrieved by the order dated 18/08/2020 in l.A .No. 427 0f 2020^{in A.S. No. 24 0f 2020 0n the file of the court of the} XXVII Addl. Chief^{Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Vasanta A/anasseh,^{W/o. Late Dr. ltlanasseh,Aged. 72 years,} Occu. Household.

¶9

Dr. Mr. Manaseh, S/o.^{Ivlr. Joseph,Aged 70 years' Occ. Nill, (Died and LRs} already on record)

¶10

Mr. P.M.E. Joseph^{Raj, S/o. Dr. Mr lvlanasseh,Aged. 40 years,} Occu. Business,

¶11

All are Fl/o. F.No.^G-1 ,^{Plot No. 39, Road No.4, Thrimurthy Colony, Mahendra} Hills' secunderabad- 500026 ...pETrroNERS

¶12

AND

¶13

M/s. Sarah Constructions,^{Rep by its proprietorSmt' Sarah Vijetha,} W/o. Seelam Devakar, Aged^{about 42years, Rl/o. S.Devakar'} C/o S.srinivasulu Fflat no 3, Srinivasa^{towers,near Mandal office, Kankipadu} Vijayawada Rural, Krishna district^{AndhraPradesh.}

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶16

Petition under Section 151 of^{CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Court maybe pleasedto suspendthe} operation of Docket Order dated^{18lOBl202Opassedin l.A. No' 427 oI 202Oin} A.S. No. 24 of 2020. on the file of the^{Hon'ble XXVII Addl. Chief Judge,} City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI^{P. PRASHANT KUMAR}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents:^NONEAPPEARED

¶19

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶20

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICEUJJALBHUYAN} CTVIL REItrISI^{ON PETITIONNo.8O3 OF 2022}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Heard Mr. T. Prashanth^{Kumar, learned counselfor the} revision petitioners.

¶24

This revision^{petition has been fi1ed assailingthe} docket order dated^{18.O8.2O2O passed by the XXVII} Additional Chief^{Judge, City Civil Court,Secunderabadin} I.A.No.427 of 2,O2O in^{A.S.No-24of 2O2O}

¶25

Respondent as the^{plaintilf had institutedO'S'No'19 of} 2015 against the^{petitioners who are arrayed as defendants'} The suit was for^{recovery ofmoney under contractua-l} obligation. Learned^{trial courti.e., III Additional senior civil} Judge, City Civil Court,^{Secunderabadby the judgment and} decree dated 19.02.2O2O^{decreedthe suit for Rs'14,86,571-} OO with cost along^{with interest} @^{l2o/o per annum from the} date of filing of the suit^{till the date of realization'}

¶26

Against the aforesaid^{judgment and decree,petitioners} ,have preferred appeal beforc the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad^{which has been registeredas}

¶27

¶28

A.S.No.24 of 2O2O. petitioners a_lso filed a petition under Order 41 Rule 5 (1) of the Code of Civil procedure, 190g (CPC) to stay the judgment and decree dated 19.O2.2O2O during pendency of the appeaJ. By the docket order dated 18.08.2020 learned lower appellate Court has granted interim stay subject to petitioners depositing suit costs and I l4th of the decreetal amount within 15 days.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that because of finalcial hardship suffered on account of covid-19 pandemic and arso on account of death of petitioner No.2, petitioners are not in a position to make the payment in terms of docket order dated lB.O8.2O2O, though suit costs have been depositcd.

¶30

I am afraid that on such consideration, there can be a blanket stay on a money decree. As a matter of fact, Court finds no error or infirmity in the view taken by the lower appellate Court in passing the order dated 1g.Og.2O2O.

¶31

However, for ends of justice petitioners may still deposit 7/4th o{ the decreetal amount within 30 days from today and if such deposit is made with proof submitted before the

¶32

¶33

¶34

Iearned lower appellate Court, there shall be stay of the judgment ancl decree dated 19.02.2020. However, if the petitioners fail to make the deposit as above, the stay order would not be operative.

¶35

Accordingly, this disposes of the civil revision petition.

¶36

Miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in this civil revision petition sha_ll stand closed.

¶37

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSTSTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COpy// "r,.UE^u(rFYl'

¶38

ro,

¶39

'ec#ffirrlcen

¶40

The )fiVll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶41

One CC to Sri p. prashant Kumar, Advocate [OpUC]

¶42

Two CD Copies

¶43

One Spare Copy

ktt

HIGH COURT

DATED:19 rc412022

1
r\E ii i./i r (
(
2 I JUil 2022
oot
{+
i
PATCYT c-f)

ORDER

CRP.No.803 ot 2022

DISPOSING OF THE CRP

Vvb
P' 0

Smt. Vasanta Manasseh v. M/s. Sarah Constructions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vasanta Manasseh v. M/s. Sarah Constructions

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

M/s. Kaveri Seeds Company Ltd. Vs M/s Pioneer Oversees Corporation

Sri K.Rambabu, Hyd and 12 Others Vs M/S S R R Infra Projects Limited, Hyd

Mohd. Bahramuddin Vs Sri a. Balaji

Naresh Kancha Vs Lakshmi Kancha

Smt. Kaliki Srimahitha Vs Sri. Kolli Ravi Shankar Reddy

Mohan Reddy Vs Smt. Aliya Devi