Petitioner challenged an ex parte attachment of Rs.6,00,000 in his bank account ordered by the Agent to Government in a recovery suit without notice or reasons. The High Court set aside the attachment and directed the court below to decide the interlocutory application afresh after hearing both parties within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3303 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO
FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3764 OF 2025
Petition under Article 227 of the constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2025 passed in lA No. 40o of 2o2s in o.S No. J77 of 202s, on the fite of the Agent to the Government, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District.
Between:
Mohammad Mazaharuddin, S/o Late Ameeruddin, Age. 50 years, Occupation. Plant Attendant, R/o H.No.10-l -7411 , KT?S R-oad, iralvoncha'Town, Bhadradri Kothagudem District
...PETITIONER
AND
Bangaru Ramakrishna, S/o Yerraiah, Age. 44 years, Occ. Agriculture, Fi/o Pglg".r,Ramaswamy Gumpu, Paloncha Mandal, BhadradriKothagudem District.
...RESPONDENT
lA NO: 2 OF 2025
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 stay the impugned order dated 19.O9.2025 passed in lA No. 400 of 2025 in 0.S No. 377 ot 2025 on the file of the Agent to the Government, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District pending disposal of this revision petition and pass.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SANDEEP KUMAR BODLA
Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K.RAJSHEKAR
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREEI\IIVASRAO CML REVISION PETITION No.3764o [_202s
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed bi hepetitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2025passedby the learned Agent to Govemment, Bhadradri Kothaguderrr District,in I.A.No.400 of 2025 in O.S. No. 377 of'2025.rvlrct,. in thc learned Agent to(iovemment directed attachlnent ol- rtn auount of Rs.6,00,000,/- lying in the petitioner's Savings Bank Account No. 6201010146 I at State Bank of lndia. KarLr.ragiriBranch, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District.
2
opportunity andwithout assigning any reasons,directing attachment of anamount ol Rs.6'00.0001 lying in the petitioner's bank account andthe sameis liable to be set aside.
5' Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on
.it!{.
\ I
I
)
record, it reveals that the respondent filed O.S.Nc..\77 ol 2025 for recovery of an amount of Rs.28,44,000/-. Alors rvith the said suit, he l'iled I.A.No.400 of 2025, seeking lttachrnent of Rs.6,00,000/- lying in the petitioner's bank account. Ilowever, the learned Agent to Govemment, without issuing no-ir:e and without giving opportunity to the petitioner, passed the nrpugned order dated 19.09.2025. The said order reads as follou.s
''ll/hereo.t the qbove named petitiorcr filed a pelition bclit, i thc ( ourt to ottach o/' &t.6,00.000/-(Rupees Six Lqkh o .t,t tr/t,ch i,; rttt omounl of holding by lhe respondnet in his sau-ing.; lirt,tA -lct ourtt No.620l0l0l46l at SBI Bank, Kanrnagiri Brunch. Khunin tn RuLl Mandal, Khamnrum Di strict.
Therefore, you ore direcled lo allach thc ahove-squl r ltotrttt. till furtherordars and reporlcompliance."
Govemment without issuing notice to the petitionr.r straightaway passed the order of attachment, especially withlrr: giving any
reasons.
7 . For the foregoing reasons, while exercising tll€ supen/isory julisdiction conferred under Arlicle 227 of t[.re ('o tstirution ol India, this Court holds that the impugned order lrassed by rhe leamed Agent to Government, Bhadradri-Kothaeud:rn District,
'1
.+
I
in I.A.No.400of 2025 in O'S' No' 377 of 2025' datedl9'09'2025 - is liableto be set aside and accordinglyset aside' The leamed Magistrateis directedto decide I'A'No'400 of 2025 in accordance with law,after giving opportunity to the parties' withina period offour(4) weeks fromthe date of receipt ofa copy ofthis order' is entittedto raiseall the It isneedlessto say that the petitioner
groundswhichare available in law'
8 Withthe abovedirection' the Civil Revision Petitionis
disposedof. No costs'
Miscellaneousapplications'pending'ifanY, shallstand
I i
To,
closed.
Sd/. T. SRIDEVI ASSISTANTREGISTRAR 6
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
t. The Agentto the Government,Bhadradri-KothagudemDistrict' z. onu cd tosnt. SANDEEP KUMAR BODLA Advocate[oPUC] 5. o;; ccto SRl.K.RAJSHEKAR, AdvocatetoPUCl
TPK/kam
I
HIGH COURT
DATE D: 07 111 12025
't:
1v --, ll l-;,1 (:
{)
,|) (,)
1 ilj \ tii?5
ORDER
GRP.No.3764 of 2025
CIVIL REVISION PETITION tS DISF'OSED OF
L
1
i\ <br><br>
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an attachment order passed without notice or reasons under Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction should be set aside.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohammad Mazaharuddin
Bangaru Ramakrishna
J Sreenivas Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
