Dr.Bahadurshaw Venkat Reddy v. M/S.Ssv Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
[ 3378 I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3567 OF 2025 Petition under Anicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Orders dated. , 181812025 passed by the ll Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in EP No.12812024 in Arb.OP No.558i2013 issurng Attachment Order against JDR No.4 under Order XXI Rule-43 of cPc.
Between:
Dr.Bahadurshaw Venkat Reddy, S/o.late P.R B.Shaw, Aced about 55 years, Occ. Dental Surgeon, M/S.Oental Clinic. D.No.1-7 -1441114, R.K.Complex, Beside Balaji Bakery, Golconda x Roads' Musheerabad' Hyderabad ...pETrroNERJDR No.4/oppoNENT No.4 AND1. M/S.SSV Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd, Having its Regd.Otf at 404, Nagasuri Plaza, Plot No.8, Gayatri Nagar, Behind Martrivanam, Ameeipet, Hyderabad-38, Rep.by its Managing, Dire_gtor, . . G.Venkateswara Rao, S/o Venugopala Rao, aged 61 years, Ryo.Plot No.190/4, Phase-lll, Rd No'76' Jubilee Hills Hvderabad'
REspoNDENT/DHR/DrspurANT Manikonda Anjaneyulu, Sio.M.Nageswara PAO, Aged about 56 years, Occ. Managing Director, M/s.Adarsh Communications Pvt. Ltd , FIat No.404, Concorde Apartments, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-82, R/o.Flat No 402, Lakshmi Nilayam, Sri Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-73 Smt.Manikonda Reeta, W/o.M.Antaneyulu, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Director, M/s.Adarsh Communications Pvt Ltd., Flat No 404. Concorde Apartments, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-82, Rr/o.Flat No.402, Lakshmi Nilayam, Sri Nagai Colony, Hyderabad-73. Gandikota Snnivasa Rao, S/o.G.Sriramulu Aged about 62 years, Occ. Proprietor M/s.srinivasa Constructions, Flat No.10'1 , RR Heights, Sunder Nagar Colony, Erragadda, Hyderabad-18, R/o H.No 7-1-395/46 and 49, Flat No.302, Raghavendra Gardens, SR Nagar, Hyderabad-38.
Narasannagari Venkata Ramana Reddy, , S/o.C.Nagi Reddy, Aged about 47 years, Occ Manaqino Fartner M/s.Sri Balaii Constructions, Plot No.192, Nizampet, Hyderabad - 72, R/o.F.-No:302, Mispah Heaven6, Moti Nagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad - 18 ...RESPONDENTS/JDR NOS.1,2,3,& 5 lA NO: 1 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 grant interim suspension of Orders dated 18.8.2025 passed by the ll Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in EP No.128t2024 in Arb.OP No.558/2013, pendang disposal of the above CRP.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. PALLY VINOD KUMAR REDDY REPRES ENTTNG SRt. VUTHPALA SUNIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: -- The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVL REVISION PETITION No.3567 of 2025
ORDER
Heard Mr.Pally Vinod Kumar Reddy, leamed counsel representing Mr.V.Sunit Kumar, leamed counsel lor the petitioner and perused the record.
2.
The present Civit Revision Petition which has been filed assailing the order passed by leamed I[ Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in E,.P.No. 128 ol 2024 in Arb.O.P.No.558 of 2013, whereby, vide thc irnpugned order datcd 18'08.2025, the leamed Executing Cor-u1 has issucd attachment orders under Order XXI Rule 43 of C.P.C. against the E.P. schedule movable property belonging to the petitioner herein.
3.
The solitary contention of the petitioner is that though he was one of the guarantors, leaving aside the other guarantors, as \ also Judgment-debtor, the Decree-holdcr had proceeded against him alone and therefbre, the Execution Proceedings have to be stayed.
4.
A perusal of the record would go to show that the Execution Proceedings have been initiated arising out ol Arb.OP.No.558 of
2013, where an award was passed on 31.12.201). It has been informed that against the said award, an appeal has been prefer.red. However, perusal of the record would go to st cw that infact, an appeal under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act l9g2 has been preferred only recently on 05.0g.2025. No plau:ri rle explanation has been provided as to why the appeal was not pr:.erred promptly within reasonable period of time, though the awar,l was passed six years back. Thus, the award was executable and here cannot be any fault found with the order passed by the Execr_ I ng Court- The appropriate recourse would be for the petitioner to pursue the appeal and get an interim order there.
5. The Civil Revision petition fails and r , accordingly, rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions penctir 3, if any, shall stand closed.
IiD/. L.VUAYA LAXMI ASS STANTREGISTBAR- ,/TRUE COPY/I \ sEcTloN oFFlcER To,
1. The ll Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, Hydera I d Distrrct 2 The Deputy Registrar of CHlTS/Arbitrator, Erragadda AT HYDERA IAD Hyderabad
3. One CC to SRl. VUTHPALASUNIL KUMAR Advocate IOPUC]
4. Two CD Copies PK/PSI,
HIGH COURT DATED:1411112025 . qTr c CRP.No.3567 ot 2025 i:.- oo 0 g tB 2[26 * + U1 .'c,..!-Cy I CIVIL REVISON PETITION FAILS, AND S REJECTED v