Telangana High Court
Ubrs Housing And Infra Developers Llp vs Vanga Ssudheer Reddy (Alias Sudheer) on 26 March, 2026
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4564 of 2025
DATE: 26.03.2026
Between:
UBR's Housing and Infra Developers LLP
and 2 others.
...Petitioners
AND
Vanga Sudheer Reddy (alias Sudheer)
and 15 others
...Respondents
ORDER:
Heard Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Rusheek Reddy K.V., learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. R.Sushanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for CBIC appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2, Mr. K.Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of P. Vidhyadhar Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.3, and Mr. Vivek Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
Page 2 of 16
2. The instant Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved of the order dated 10.11.2025, in I.A.No.1297 of 2025 in O.S.No.442 of 2025, passed by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.
3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court rejected the I.A.No.1297 of 2025 filed by the petitioners under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking for an attachment before judgment.
4. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and respondents herein are the defendants before the Trial Court. For convenience, the parties are being addressed in respect of their status before the Trial Court.
5. The plaintiffs by filing the aforesaid I.A. have sought for a direction from the Court to direct the defendants to furnish a security to the tune of Rs.24,07,21,377/- to be deposited in the Court, failing which an order of attachment before judgment insofar as the defendants are concerned would be passed.
Page 3 of 16
6. The facts in brief relevant for adjudication of the instant Civil Revision Petition are that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for recovery of money against the defendants. The plaintiffs entered into an agreement of sale in respect of certain agricultural land in Maheshwaram Village, Ranga Reddy District and registration of which was to be done after the money was transferred against the said agreement of sale. Meanwhile, certain Memorandum of Understandings (for short 'MoUs') were entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2. The two MoUs entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 was to be treated as composite transaction and it is contended that the money was also transferred treating the two agreements as composite one. The defendant No.1, meanwhile, demanded more money as he was developing another venture in respect of the land standing in the name of his son Mr. Vanga Siddharth Reddy (defendant No.3). Certain money further was also paid by the plaintiffs to defendant Nos.3 and 4. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs were waiting for registration of the land to be done. When it did not happen for a considerable period of time, the plaintiffs filed the suit.
Page 4 of 16
7. The defendant No.1, in fact, had also given an undertaking that the whole amount along with interest at the rate of 36% per annum shall be paid, which too did not happen. Neither was any land given in lieu in terms of the agreement agreed upon. Meanwhile, certain criminal cases were also filed before the CCS, Hyderabad, which was registered as CRLP.No.231/2014. Though the said FIR is put to quashment vide CRLP.No.14885 of 2024 before the High Court, the same is still pending.
8. Meanwhile, however, the plaintiffs have filed the suit O.S.No.442 of 2025 against the defendants seeking for recovery of money along with damages. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs have also filed an I.A. seeking for issuance of an appropriate direction to the defendants to furnish a security to the tune of Rs.24,07,21,377/- by way of deposit as a security in the event of the plaintiffs succeeding in the suit and getting the said order executed. Accordingly, purely as a security measure the plaintiffs have sought for grant of an order of attachment before judgment.
Page 5 of 16
9. It is this application which was refused by the Trial Court leading to filing of the instant Civil Revision Petition.
10. According to the plaintiffs, in terms of the agreement of sale the defendants were to pay Rs.29 crores and 160 plots. Out of the said agreement of sale, the defendants only paid Rs.55 lakhs and thereafter there was a default in making the balance of payment. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants had in a fraudulent manner induced them in paying crores of rupees and when it came for refund of the said money or plots in lieu of the said money, they adopted an evasive stand and defaulted in repayment of the amount payable to the plaintiffs. It was in this context that the plaintiffs have filed the suit along an I.A. under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC seeking for attachment before judgment.
11. According to the plaintiffs, they have met all the ingredients which are required to establish a case under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC and therefore they were quite hopeful of the Trial Court considering their request for attachment before judgment. According to the plaintiffs, they have also showcased before the Trial Court all the relevant ingredients to Page 6 of 16 meet the prayer for attachment before judgment like, prima facie the matter being in their favour, the plaintiffs' apprehension of the defendants alienating the property and non-marking of the relevant documents by the Trial Court filed by the plaintiffs themselves.
12. The plaintiffs contended that from the averments made by the defendants there does not seem to be any specific denial by the defendants to the pleadings and averments so far as the relief sought for under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC is concerned and meeting the grounds required under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC.
13. It was also contended by the plaintiffs that the Trial Court has wrongly appreciated the aspect of delay on the part of the plaintiffs in getting the suit itself registered, which itself had consumed substantial period of time so as to draw an adverse inference against the plaintiffs. Likewise, it was also the contention of the plaintiffs that the Trial Court has wrongly appreciated the filing of criminal complaint and using of police mechanism to settle the dispute and subsequently having thought Page 7 of 16 of filing of a suit as also granting of the order of attachment before judgment.
14. On the other hand, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 contended that in fact a plain reading of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court itself makes it clear that the same is self-explanatory and does not warrant any interference. According to the defendant Nos.1 and 2, the Trial Court has taken note of the fact that the plaintiffs have not met all the ingredients envisaged under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC and, therefore, the findings given by the Trial Court cannot be said to be either illegal or contrary. Nor can it be said to be a perverse finding of fact.
15. According to defendant Nos.1 and 2 there was no material available on record to demonstrate the alleged intent of the defendants to alienate the subject property, that too, with an intention of defeating any decree that is likely to be passed. It was contended that the entire claim petition filed by the plaintiffs itself is baseless as at no point of time defendant No.1 has given any undertaking so far as repayment of the Page 8 of 16 alleged dues to the plaintiffs along with interest at the rate of 36% per annum.
16. According to the defendant Nos.1 and 2, of the 39 petition schedule properties against which attachment is sought for, only F-1 and F-2 properties are owned by defendant No.1 and defendant No.5 i.e. the wife of defendant No.1 and both these properties are combined properties and is a permanent residence of defendant Nos.1 and 5. No material has also been brought on record to show the intention of defendant Nos.1 and 5 in alienating the said property. According to the defendant Nos.1 and 2, all the contentions put forth by the parties have been duly considered by the Trial Court in the course of passing of the impugned order and as such, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application on merits itself and the same does not warrant any interference.
17. Referring to the MoU dated 24.06.2019, 19.09.2019, 10.11.2021, and sub-MoU dated 10.11.2021, it was contended by defendant Nos.1 and 2 that these are all separate independent agreements entered into Page 9 of 16 between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 and 4 and those agreements are pertaining to separate and distinct piece of land and clubbing all the agreements as a composite transaction and including the agreement for sale dated 04.10.2019 is frivolous, baseless and false.
18. Lastly, it was contended by defendant Nos.1 and 2 that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to adduce any third party affidavit or material with which it could be established that defendant Nos.1 and 2 or for that matter the defendants are intending in any matter to alienate the subject property.
19. Similar were the arguments advanced on behalf of defendant No.3. It was contended by defendant No.3 that since the instant is a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, limited scope of interference is permissible. Exercise of the powers under Article 227 is permissible only in the event of there is an order passed in excess of jurisdiction or by somebody who is otherwise incompetent to have passed the said order. The other occasion which could permit the interference under Article 227 is in the event of there being any Page 10 of 16 perversity in the finding of fact given by the Trial Court. According to defendant No.3 neither is there any ground of jurisdictional error committed by the Trial Court, nor is there any ground of any perversity in the finding of fact by the Trial Court. In the absence of any these grounds, the scope of interference to a well-reasoned order of the Trial Court becomes impermissible.
20. It was also the contention of defendant No.3 that in the course of deciding the application filed by the plaintiffs the Trial Court has exercised its discretionary powers. The power of discretion cannot be questioned in excess of the powers under Article 227 vested upon the High Court. It was also emphasized by defendant No.3 insofar the plaintiffs having failed to produce cogent material in order to establish the ingredients required to meet the conditions envisaged under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC, and as such, there is no culpable error committed by the Trial Court while passing the impugned order.
21. According to defendant No.3, the plaintiffs themselves have not disputed the fact that the provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC Page 11 of 16 has to be rarely exercised and should not be invoked as a matter of routine, and all these facts have been rightly considered by the Trial Court while passing the impugned order.
22. It was lastly contended by defendant No.3 that it is a case where the suit itself was filed in 2019 and the I.A. seeking attachment before judgment is being sought for after 6 years of its filing i.e. in the year 2025, that too, without any prima facie proof of establishing the intention of defendants alienating the subject property. So far as the contention of the plaintiffs that the documents have not been marked again is erroneous and the plaintiffs themselves did not seek to exhibit any documents and those documents that were available with the Trial Court have been duly considered.
23. Having gone through the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, it would be pertinent at this juncture to take note of the findings given by the Trial Court in the course of passing of the impugned order, more particularly the findings given in paragraph Page 12 of 16 Nos.13 and 14. For ready reference, paragraph Nos.13 and 14 of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder, viz., "13. The contention of the respondents noted as above, on a perusal of the material on record, it appears that the contention raised by the respondents is believed to be true. On the contrary, there is no explanation from the end of the petitioners on the said aspect. The said attitude of the petitioners itself is sufficient to hold that the petitioners failed to satisfy the essentials of Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC in the light of their contention referred as above at para 47 and 49 of petition supporting affidavit. Referring to document No.18, complaint, Dated 16- 11-2024 and Document No.19, FIR in Cr.No.231 of 2024, Dated 17-11- 2024 on one hand and getting registered the suit on 23-9-2025 on the other hand, an adverse inference can be drawn on the case of the petitioners and can be held that on failure to settle the matter through police mechanism. the petitioners finally got registered the suit. In the afore facts and circumstances, the preposition in the judgment of the erstwhile Hon'ble High Court of AP in Bommana Saree Mandir Vs M/s. Manisha Sarees, 2001 (2) APLJ 173 (HC) relied upon by the petitioners on conduct of parties does not applicable to this case.
14. Be that as it may except self serving statement, admittedly, the petitioners have not filed any third party affidavits as to show that with an intention to defraud the petitioners and delaying the execution of decree, the respondents are attempting to remove or dispose of their assets. As a matter of fact, after filing the counters, on 06-11-2025 at the time of submitting arguments, the petitioners tried to file third party affidavit of one Rudra Vaikuntam along with certain documents as to show that the respondent No.4 through the respondents No.3 and 5 are Page 13 of 16 attempting to sell the property. The learned counsel for the respondents strenuously raised objection to receive the said third party affidavit. In the facts and circumstances of the case noted as above, the third party affidavit along with the documents can not be considered. Once the third party affidavit has been omitted from consideration there is no other material on record except the vague and general allegations in the affidavit of the petitioner No.2 that the rèspondents are attempting to dispose of the property or remove it beyond the jurisdiction of the court, unsupported by particulars, would not be sufficient compliance with the rule and that apart, the petitioners failed to state the grounds on which they entertain the belief or apprehension that the respondents would dispose of or remove the property or, to give the source of their information and belief in the matter through an affidavit. In these circumstances, referring to preposition in Raman Tech & Engg's case noted as above, it can be said that merely on the ground that the petitioners have a just and valid claim or a prima facie case, the same by itself will not entitle the petitioners as they failed to establish that the respondents are attempting to remove or dispose of their assets with an intention of defeating the decree that may be passed. Accordingly, this court answered the point against the petitioners." There were other grounds also which have been duly considered by the Trial Court and it is only thereafter the Trial Court had found the application filed by the plaintiffs not having sufficient force.
24. Upon hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs, this Court is also of the firm view that firstly, the Trial Court has not Page 14 of 16 committed any error of law or on facts in the course of passing of the impugned order. Secondly, even before this Court the plaintiffs have not been able to produce any cogent proof of meeting the ingredients required under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC or at least to the extent of producing some material to show that the defendants have conspired together against the plaintiffs and intend to alienate the subject property with an intention of defeating the claim of the plaintiffs in the event of the decree being passed in favour of the plaintiffs. Thus, there does not seem to be any perversity convincingly established by the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raman Tech. and Process Engg. Co. and Ors. vs. Solanki Traders 1, held at paragraph Nos.4 to 6, as under:
"4. The object of supplemental proceedings (applications for arrest or attachment before judgment, grant of temporary injunctions and appointment of receivers) is to prevent the ends of justice being defeated. The object of Order 38 Rule 5 CPC in particular, is to prevent any defendant from defeating the realisation of the decree that may ultimately be passed in favour of the plaintiff, either by attempting to 1 (2008) 2 SCC 302 Page 15 of 16 dispose of, or remove from the jurisdiction of the court, his movables.
The scheme of Order 38 and the use of the words "to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him" in Rule 5 make it clear that before exercising the power under the said Rule, the court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable chance of a decree being passed in the suit against the defendant. This would mean that the court should be satisfied that the plaintiff has a prima facie case. If the averments in the plaint and the documents produced in support of it, do not satisfy the court about the existence of a prima facie case, the court will not go to the next stage of examining whether the interest of the plaintiff should be protected by exercising power under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. It is well settled that merely having a just or valid claim or a prima facie case, will not entitle the plaintiff to an order of attachment before judgment, unless he also establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed. Equally well settled is the position that even where the defendant is removing or disposing his assets, an attachment before judgment will not be issued, if the plaintiff is not able to satisfy that he has a prima facie case.
5. The power under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is a drastic and extraordinary power. Such power should not be exercised mechanically or merely for the asking. It should be used sparingly and strictly in accordance with the Rule. The purpose of Order 38 Rule 5 is not to convert an unsecured debt into a secured debt. Any attempt by a plaintiff to utilise the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 as a leverage for coercing the defendant to settle the suit claim should be discouraged. Instances are not wanting where bloated and doubtful claims are realised by unscrupulous plaintiffs by obtaining orders of attachment Page 16 of 16 before judgment and forcing the defendants for out-of-court settlements under threat of attachment.
6. A defendant is not debarred from dealing with his property merely because a suit is filed or about to be filed against him. Shifting of business from one premises to another premises or removal of machinery to another premises by itself is not a ground for granting attachment before judgment. A plaintiff should show, prima facie, that his claim is bona fide and valid and also satisfy the court that the defendant is about to remove or dispose of the whole or part of his property, with the intention of obstructing or delaying the execution of any decree that may be passed against him, before power is exercised under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. Courts should also keep in view the principles relating to grant of attachment before judgment. (See Premraj Mundra v. Md. Manech Gazi [AIR 1951 Cal 156] for a clear summary of the principles.)"
26. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is also of the firm view that the instant Civil Revision Petition being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
27. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J Date: 26.03.2026 GSD