Disposed

Pashikanti Rajendra Venkat, v. NimmaMalla Reddy

Telangana HC21 Apr 2023CRP/1026/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition under Article 226/227 CPC regarding rent deposit, the High Court ordered the petitioner to deposit the awarded rent amount but prohibited the respondent from withdrawing it, directing a fixed account for the funds pending the outcome of related suits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit the awarded rent amount within 6 weeks; respondent not permitted to withdraw the said amount.

Pashikanti Rajendra Venkat, Vs NimmaMalla Reddy — Telangana HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENry FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITI ON NO: 1026OF 2023

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated08 12.2022 passed in lANo 136of 2018, in O.S.No.371 of 2018 onthefileof the^gorrt of the Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pashrkanti Rajendra Venkat, S/o. Late P.Venkataiah, Aged 52 years, Occ.Business, R/ o. 12-13-691111, Lane. No. 1 , Street No. 13, Nagarjuna l,,iagar, Tarnaka, Secunderabad.

¶9

... Petitioner/Defendant

¶10

P,ND

¶11

NimmaMalla Reddy, S/o. Late. N.Venkat Reddy, Aged 65 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Flat. No. 20 1 , Srinivas Arcade, Padmanagar Colony, Karmanghat. L.B Nagar Municipality, Hyderabad -79.

¶12

... RespondenUPlaintiff

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶14

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in ii e affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to s,rspend the operation of the Order lmpugned dated. O811212022 passed in l.A No 136 ol 2O1B in OS. No. 371 of 2018 on the file of the Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, pending hearing and disposal of the Revision Petitron.

¶15

.l ounsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. M. RAFEE

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI A NAJEEB KHAN

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

-2

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶20

c.R.P.NO.1026 0F 2023

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heard learned counsel Sri S.M. Rafee, for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri A. Nazeem Khan, for the respondent.

¶23

The plaintiff filed I.A.No.136 of 2O18 in O.S.No.371 of 2018 under Section XV-A read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code (for short 'C.P.C.') before the Court of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,^praying to^direct respondent/ defendant to pay the rent of Rs.10,92,719 l- and' further direct to pay the rents from May, 20 18 at the^rate of Rs.75,2451 -. The trial Court by order dated 30.01.2023 directed the petitioner herein to deposit Rs.1O,92,719 /-^{and incase of} default, his defence would be stuck off^{without granting further} time. Aggrieved thereby, this revision^is filed.

¶24

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for^the petitioner informs that the petitioner liled O.S.No.542^{of. 2018} praying to issue a declaration that the defendant^{therein shouid} refund the advance^paid by^{the petitioner/plaintiff along with} interest which^works out^{to Rs. 11,00,000/- and submits that} when O.S.No.542 of^{2078is pending lbr the said amount which}

¶25

t"x

¶26

-3

¶27

is higher than the amount^{claimed try the plaintiff in O'S No'371} of 2018, it would^{cause greatprejudiceto the petitionerif such} amount is deposited^{and the plaintiff is allowedto withdrawthe} said amount.^{He further submits that petitioner is not required} to pay any amount^{as the respondent is no more the ownerof} the propert5r, that^{was earlieroccupiedby the petitioner and} which is now acquired^{by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal} Corporation.

¶28

I am not expressing^{any opinion on the said contention} and it is for the^{parties to lead evidence in two pendingsuits'} This court is informed^{that O.S.No.S 42 of2Ol8 isnow} transferred to the court^{of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil} Court, Hyderabad^{to be triedalong with O.S'No'371 of 2O1a'}

¶29

At this stage, learned^{counsei for respondent states that} the suit property^{is not takenover by the GHMCand petitioner} is still occupying a^{portionof the property.}

¶30

¶31

Having regard to the^{submissions made, with the consent} of both the^{parties,the Court directs the petitioner to deposit} the amount awarded^{by the trial Court in I.A.No.136 of 2018in} O.S.No.371 of^{2018 within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a} copy of this^{order.However, respondent/plaintiff isnot} permitted to withdraw^{the said amount. The trial Court shall}

¶32

-4

¶33

keep the amount^{in a hxed depositaccount' Accordingly'the}

¶34

CivilRevisionPetitionisdisposedof.Miscellaneouspetitions,

¶35

pending if anY,^{shail stand ciosed'}

¶36

Sd/-K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// tu

¶37

SECTION^OFFICER

¶38

To,

¶39

1 The Xl Additional^{Chief Judge, City Civil Court' at Hyderabad} .) onl Cc to sRl^{s. M. RAFEE, Advocate[OPUC]} ^-

¶40

? 5;; CC i" snr^{n NAJEEB KHAN,Advocate[oPUCl}

4 Two CD CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED:2110412023

ORDER

N- STAT E o
7
NB
-)'I J\\ .:>
a) t 1
d
I ^-rrriC"

¶47

CRP.Np.f026 of 2023

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION

¶49

Pashikanti Rajendra Venkat, v. NimmaMalla Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pashikanti Rajendra Venkat, v. NimmaMalla Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Surabhi Shelters Pvt. Ltd., Vs Smt. Deepa Lalchandani

D. Madhavi Devi Vs S.K.Srinivasa Raju

Sri Shaik Nawaz Vs Mohd Aleem

Shaik Abdul Sattar Vs Mrs. Naseeb Khatoon

Sri.Satyanarayana Challa ,Satish Challa Vs Smt.Sumana Sai Desai

Gottee Madhu Sudhan Vs Smt. G.RatnaKumari