Telangana High Court
Smt. Dr. Mvd Aruna Putrevu Aruna vs Smt. Putrevu Rajayalakshmi on 14 December, 2022
Bench: A.Venkateshwara Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2612 OF 2022
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India by the petitioners/plaintiffs
assailing the orders dated 08.09.2022 in I.A.No.1308 of 2022 in
O.S.No.461 of 2018 on the file of the XXVI Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.
2. This I.A.No.1308 of 2022 was filed by the
petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 38, Rule 5 read with Section
151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC') to direct the 1st
respondent/1st defendant to furnish security for an amount of
Rs.1,86,69,766.73 paise within the time fixed by the Court,
failing which to issue conditional attachment of petition
schedule properties. Learned Judge of the trial Court has
dismissed the said application with an observation that the
petitioners have not specifically pleaded that the 1st defendant
is either making any attempts to alienate the suit schedule
property or to remove it from the jurisdiction of that Court to
delay or defeat the execution of the decree that may be passed
against her and the only apprehension of the petitioners is that
AVR,J
CRP_2612_2022
if the 1st respondent/1st defendant, who is in the twilight of her
life, God forbid, leaves this word to heavenly abode, it becomes
difficult to execute the decree that may be eventually passed in
the suit, it would remain on paper and it is not a ground
enumerated under the scheme of Order 38, Rule 5 of CPC.
3. Notice ordered to the 1st respondent/1st defendant
was served, but there is no representation on her behalf,
whereas the respondent Nos.2 to 8 are not necessary parties as
per the cause title.
4. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and
the submissions made have received due consideration of this
Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on
the principles laid in Bommana Saree Mandir, Appellants Vs.
Manisha Sarees, Respondent1.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revision
petitioner that 1st respondent has withdrawn entire amount
which was transferred to her account as nominee of the
deceased PVG Raju and she is living for the present with her
daughter, it is just and essential to order conditional
AIR 2002 AP 66
AVR,J
CRP_2612_2022
attachment of suit schedule A and B properties before judgment
in order to protect the interest of the petitioners/plaintiffs in the
suit schedule A amount.
6. Perused the material available on record, including
the orders in CRP No.1341 of 2019 dated 22.04.2022 wherein
the trial Court was directed to expedite the disposal of
O.S.No.461 of 2018 and to make every endeavour for disposal of
the same within six months from the date of receipt of copy of
the said order.
7. Be it stated that the said order in CRP No.1341 of
2019 was passed on 22.04.2022 and it is submitted by learned
counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs that the evidence
of the defendant is also recorded and the Original Suit is ripen
for disposal. In such circumstances, having regard to the
scheme of Order 38, Rule 5 of CPC and settled principles of law,
more particularly the principles laid by the Apex Court in
Raman Tech. and Process Engineering Company and
another Vs. Solanki Traders2 I do not find any infirmity in the
order impugned. Any attempt by plaintiffs to utilize the
2008 (6) ALT 18 (SC)
AVR,J
CRP_2612_2022
provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC as leverage for coercing
the defendants to settle the suit claim should be discouraged.
8. The facts of the case on hand are distinguishable
from the facts in Bommana Saree Mandir (1st supra), relied
upon by the learned counsel for revision petitioners and there is
no averment in the supporting affidavit that the
respondent/defendant is trying to move out of the jurisdiction
of the Court or trying to alienate the schedule A and B
properties. Therefore, in the factual matrix discussed above, in
view of the principles laid by the Apex court in Raman Tech
(2nd supra), for exercising the power under Order 38, Rule 5 of
CPC and the earlier order of this Court in CRP No.1341 of 2019
I do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the well reasoned
order impugned and it does not warrant interference by this
Court. At the cost of repetition it is reiterated that the earlier
order confirmed in CRP No.1341 of 2019 is sufficient to protect
the interest of the petitioners/plaintiffs.
9. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed
confirming the order impugned dated 08.09.2022 in
I.A.No.1308 of 2022 in O.S.No.461 of 2018 on the file of the
AVR,J
CRP_2612_2022
XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.
The learned Judge of the trial Court is reminded of the
directions in CRP No.1341 of 2019 for expeditious disposal of
the Original Suit in O.S.No.461 of 2018 within six months from
the date of receipt of copy of that order dated 22.04.2022.
In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order
as to the costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any
pending, shall stands closed.
________________________________
A.VENKATESWHARA REDDY, J
Dated : 14-12-2022
Abb
