Sri.T.Harishchandra Prasad v. Sri.Santosh Kumar Singh

[ 3378 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3725 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 18-09-2024 made in LA No.88 ot 2021 in O.S.No.146 of 2020 on the file of Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District, At Kukatpally.

Between:

'1. Sri.T.Harishchandra Prasad, S/o. late Sri,T.Nageshwara Rao, Aged about 69 years, Occ- Business, R/o. Flat No. 104, B-Block, Green Grace Apartments, Khajaguda, Hyderabad-8, T.S.

2. Smt.Bhavya Kondapaneni, Wo.Sri.Sushanth Kondapaneni, Aged about 39 Years, Occ. Housewife, R/o.360, South Market Skeet, Unit 901, San Jose, Calfornia, USA, rep. by her GPA Holder vide document No.30 of 2017, Book Vl, dated 17-01-2017, Sri.T. Harishchandra Prasad, S/o. late Sri.T. Nageshwara Rao, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Business, office at Western Constructions, 8D, 8th floor, Western Pearl, Sy.No.'13, Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084, TS.

...PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS No.'l & 2 AND 'l . Sri.Santosh Kumar Singh, Sio. Sri.R.K.Singh, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Business, and Executive Director, M/s.YKH Builders Pvt.Ltd., R/o. Flat No.A306, Express apartments, H.No.1 1-4-651, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad-500004, TS.

... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

2. M/s. Griptonite Games lndia Pvt, Ltd., rep.by lts Managing Director, Mr.lmaran Khan Kaki, having its office at 3rd floor, Western Pearl, Sy.No.'13, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District, TS. (Not necessary party) ..RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT No. 3

lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Rule 32 CpC R/w Section 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to permit the petitioner No.1 to present and prosecute the present CRp on behalf of 2nd pursuance of registered power petitioner/defendant No.2 of attorney dt.06-0.1-2017 Vi her name in de document on favour in the No.30/BKIV/20.17 registered before SRO, Rangareddy (RO) in his interest of justice IA NO: 20F 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay of a' further proceedings in o-s.No.146 0f 2020 0n the fire of rearned VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District. At Kukatpally pending disposal of the present CRp in the interest of justice. Counset for the petitioners: Sri Madiraju prabhakar Rao Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri K. Sai Rama Murthy, representino M/s. Ayyagari Jayashree '

-"-"':, The Court made the following: OROER )

TIIE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY C.R.P.No .3725 0F 2024 ORDER, Heard Mr. Madiraju Prabhakar Rao, leamed counsel for the pbtitioners and Mr.K.Sai Rama Murthy' leamed counsel representing Ms. Ayyagari Jayashree, leamed counsel for respondent No.l. Perused the record'

2.

The present is a civil revision petition which has been filed under Article 227 of the constitution of tndia assailing the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the leamed Vl-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally in I'A'No'88 of 2021 in O.S.No.146 of 2020'

3.

Vide the impugned order' the leamed trial Court has rejected the petition filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos'l and 2 underOrderVllRuleltCPCseekingrejectionofplaint. The objection raised under Order Vll Rule 1l CPC was that the suit itself not being maintainable as there appears to be prima facie misuse of the process of law and also the suit not being tenable for the reliefthat has been sought tbr'

4.Thecontentionoftheleamedcounselforthepetitionerswas that the petitioner/det'endant No' 1 had' in fact' in the course of l!

execution o1'the sale deed under challenge in the suit has acted in the capacity of Managing Director of the company. All his decisions were for and on behalf of the cornpany. 'fherefore, it is the company's decision which is under challenge before the trial Court. However, the company as such i.e., M/s yKH Builders Private Limited has not been made a party nor is the company,s action under challenge. Rather it is the suit that has br:en filed assailing the action on the company projecting it to be the decision of defendant No. i alone. He further contends that un<Jisputedly petitioner No. I had around 60%o of share in the companl, and rvas also the Managing Director. That alt the decisions that luve been taken werc for and on behalf of the company and. therelbre, the decision of the company cannot be questioned by a shareh,rlder by filing a suit. In the petition under Order VII Rule I I CpC it was also the objeclion that the suit was filed beyond the period of three years from the date the impugned sale deed was executed i.e., 06.04.20t7.

5.

Perusal of the record would show that though petitioner No.l seems to have represented the company M/s yKH Builders private Limited, but it appears that he has got the sale deed under

challenge executed in his name and in the name of his daughter' The other shareholders in the company, particularly the plaintiff' who claims himself to have 40o/o of the share in the company' was not taken into confidence nor was he granted any share in the sale consideration.

6.

Moreover, apart ftom the lact that the petitioner/defendant No.1 selling the company's property in his name and in the name of his daughter, he also acts as a General Power of Attomey for his daughter in executing of the sale deed' All these contentions have been duly considered by the triat Couft' when it reached to the conclusion that these objections are rather one which needs to be considered during trial by leading evidence' and it cannot be decided at the threshold only on the petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

7 .

Given the flnding given by the trial Court while passing the impugned order dated l8'Og'2024' this Court is of the considered view that there does not appear to be perversity or jurisdictional error on the part of the trial Courl in the course of passing of the I I I I impugned order, nor can it be said to be in excess of its jurisdiction. Moreover, the objections that the petitioners have t I

- raised can only be decided after the same are franr ed as issues and the parties are permitted to lead evidence in respect o f the two objections. Petitioner No. I having represented the comparry and the decision ol selling the property of the company in the naine of the petitioners u,hether it is that of the company, are all matters of evidence and which could not have been considered anct decided while hearing the petition under Order VII Rule ll CpC. Similarly, the issue of suit being barred by limitarion is also a mixed question of law and fact for which again evidence has to be led by the parties to establish the date on which the cause of.action arose to determine the issue of limitation as well. The l.irrding of the trial Coun on this objection also seems to be proper, lt:gal and j ustified, and does not warrant interference of this Coun. 8.

The civil revision petition is; accordingly, r.ejected. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending. if an1, shall stand closed Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL //TRUE COPYII m)il'

V SECT REGISTRAR ION OFFICER To, The Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District, Kukatpally.

9n" 99 to Sri Madiraju prabhakar Rao. Advocate tOpUCl One CC to M/s. Ayyagari Jayashree, Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies ' ' "

At 2.) 4.

VIl/gh

HIGH COURT DATED: 0Gl12t2OZ4 ti,(fr' - STArl '( (.

9z C, il{u lL) 11 tiB 2025

ORDER

t , DE ; PA.T Ct1 CRP.No.372S of 2024 REJECTING THE CRP