Allowed

Sri. M. Pushpal Reddy v. M/s. Pushpanjali Engineering works

Telangana HC12 Feb 2026CRP/2009/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff sought revision against dismissal of his application to strike off the tenant-defendant's defence for non-payment of rents from December 2020 to July 2023. The High Court found the earlier rent-deposit order required arrears payment and allowed the revision, directing arrears be paid within three months.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 08.05.2025 in I.A.No.30 of 2024 set aside; respondent directed to pay rent arrears from December 2020 to July 2023 within three months; no costs.

Sri. M. Pushpal Reddy Vs M/s. Pushpanjali Engineering… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANA// AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^{RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2009 OF 2025

¶7

Petrtion under Article 227 of Ihe Constitutron of^{lndia, Aggrreved by lhe} order dated 08 05.2025^{passed in LA. No. 3012024 in lA. No 14412023in O S} No. 1885/2022 on the file of the lll Additional^{Junior CivilJudge-cumXIV} Additional Judicial I/lagrstrate of First class, lVledchal^{It4alka;gtri Distrrctat} Kukatpally

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri lt4. Pushpal Reddy, S/o. Late Sri Narayana Reddy. Aged^{77 years, Occ} Business, R/o. H No'175-8, Plassylain, Bowenpally. Secunderabad

¶10

...Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶11

AND

¶12

M/s. Pushpanjali Engineering^{works, Rep.} by^{rts ProprietorSri. V Purushotham} Reddy S/o V lndia Redd"y Aged. 48^{year-s, Occ Business.R/o Vrlla No 25,} Luxura Green's Bowenpally, Secunderabad-'1 1 ...RespondenUDefenda nt

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶14

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesslated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the HrghCourt may be pleased} Direct respondent to^pay rents for the^{interregnum period fromJanuary, 2020Io} July 2023 totally Rs.^'1 1,61,000/-.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.^{V S SUDHAKAR}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr GARLAPATI^{JITHENDERREDDY}

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

i.:j*.::

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TT)] ,ANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^{RA.I }SHWAR RAO}

¶21

1 2th February, 2O26

¶22

CML REVISION PETITION No.2OO9 OF lO25

¶23

Between:

¶24

Sri M. Prrslr l:a I^iiL'iici._r

¶25

...Petitioner

¶26

AI{D

¶27

N1 /s. IrL-rslrparrlrir it)l.rii,'^. r'lr.ra. V'r,ti fi:i

¶28

...Respondent

¶29

QED.EE

¶30

'lhis Civrl iir:r.,isri;rr I)r: i-itio r-r is 1-rlcd to set-rts L,lc the ordcrs dirted 08.O5..)i)25 il,s,-r'r1 in i.rrL.i'{o.30 of 202,1 ir I.A.No. 144 ol 2023 ,n O.S.,, l,'i ,rl -,1(,r2,1 r;n the h1e oI t rc [e atnr:cl III Acldition:r1 .J'.,rior^{(.lrvli .-;udgr.:} cuin-XIV Adc[it onal Judicial N4agistr i.rte ol l"irst Ciirss. l,'l,rr:lctrirl llalkajgi i I)istrict at I(ul<at pall-v

¶31

Hr:r.rrcl Sri V . S.,sLldhali:rr. iearucd cou r r cl lbr the petitioncr untl Sri^():rriairati .Jithcrrcler Rr:i1r 1', learned counsel for thc respondcnt

¶32

¶33

Learned counsel for the pe titione r subniits that petitioncr has lrlccl O.S. No. 1885 ol 2022 l>efore thc trial court lrrr cviction of the rcspondent and 1br rreslte prolits. Later, thc ;retitiont:r^{hled l.A. No. 144 ol 2023 belbreLhc trial coltrtfor} cleposit of adn.ritted rcnts by lhc rcsponder-rt. Tfre said I.A. No 114 of 2023 u,as allou,ecl.

¶34

Lear-nr:d counscl hrr- thr: petitioner furtirer suirnrits that sincc the r-cspondcnl h:rs becn continu.ing in the suit schedulc propcrt,, withor-rt payir-rg the rcnt at Rs.36,.100f - pt:r morrtir from December 2O2O to July 2023 as directed bl the trizrl Court. As such. the pctitionel iilcd I.A.No.3O ol 2024 to strike olf the rk:fencc of the respor-rder-r t/ defendant. But the trizil Court chsn'rissed the said pctition b1, obscn,ing that tl're issL-rt: can bc lookcd into at the timc of lrial. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel for the t'espondent submitted that there is no specific direction in the i.A. order to pay arrears and therelore there is rro need to pay the same

¶36

¶37

6 A ircn-rsal^{o1-thc ot-cler irr I.t.No' 144 of 2O2'" \ ttt l)ar:r'graph} Nr,r.1 3 nIrl<es ir^{r:lcrri. tltatlhrc respondentisiable topay}

¶38

arrcars of^{ret-rl trr thc} 1;ctitiotrt:r'^{Ap:rrtfrom ilt le triill Court} al par:l No.14 'rlso t lcarly obscr'('(l^thil[ the Responclc^r-r t/^{Dc li'r-rcl rrn t is clirt':ctedto depositr-tr clisputed rent} amount of Rs..l.9(1..",O0/^{ri'ithin 15 days atr Ih-rrtherthe} Rcspollrlt'nt/I)t,li,rrcllrlrt^{is cliI-t.ctedto cleposit r-rlr l Rs.3tl'300/-} per motlth br'^{'r tlr ol t'r'cry nlonthzlncl in dcfauLt the defence of} the Respondt^{llt,/ De li'rrilanr u illbc struck ol-l ' \sstrch' the} respondcnt is^{clircctr-'d to pay the arrears of reutfrom} Decemltcr202Oto.Jrrlv2023amountingtoll's11'61'600/within :L periotl^{of thr-r'c(Ol3) nronthsfrom thec I 1e of receipt of} copy of this^orclt'r.

¶39

T. Accorclingl.,',^{thc Civil Rcvision Petition r s allowed by} setting aside^{thc ordcr datcrciOB.05'2025 in I ^ No'30of 2024} in I.A No. 144 d'2023^{it'L O.S No'1885 of 2022 : rL the file of the} learnecl III Ad<litional^{.Jr.rniorcivil Judge-cunrl{lV Additional} Jud.icial Magistratr:^{ol First Class, Medchal-M: lkajgiriDistrict} at Kukatpallr.^{'l'here shali bc t-ro order as to cos ts'}

¶40

¶41

As a sequel. miscellaneolls ztpplications^pending.if

¶42

an\l in this Petition. shall stzrr-rcl closeil

¶43

SD/- A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

To,

The lll Additional Junior Civil^{Judge cum-XlV AdditionalJudicial} I\Iagrstrate of First class, l\4edchal^{- l,4alkajgiri District at Kukatpally}

¶48

One CC to l\rlr. V S SUDHAKAR,^Advocate IOPUC]

¶49

3 One CC to Mr. GARLAPATI^{JITHENDERREDDY, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶50

4 Two CD Copies

RC/I'SL

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1210212026

ORDER

CRP.No.2009 of 2025

\r " e l,i
(
f :, z
Aq 2ll2[

l

¶58

Allowing Civil Revision petition withouj costs.

¶59

J'-*s alsltc

Sri. M. Pushpal Reddy v. M/s. Pushpanjali Engineering works

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M. Pushpal Reddy v. M/s. Pushpanjali Engineering works

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

K.Ravinder Reddy Vs Sri Sandeep Kumar Sultania, Ias,.

Smt.D.Nalini Reddy Vs Smt.Ranjeev Acharya, I a S.

M.Ravi Prasad Vs Sri V.P. Gautam, I.A.S

D.Srinivas Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

Dodla Neeraja Vs M/s. Sri Ram Raghavendra Chits (P) Ltd.

Sri.Raj Kumar Goud alias Raj Kumar Varaganti Vs Smt. B.Sowjanya