Telangana High Court
Smt. Shilpa Sindol vs M/S Vikarabad Pulp And Paper Mills P Ltd on 21 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3853 OF 2025
Mr. D.S.Divakar Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
ORDER:
1. The Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated
23.09.2025 in I.A.No.1407 of 2025 in A.S.No.40 of 2025 passed by the
VI Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Family Court, Ranga
Reddy District at Kukatpally.
2. The impugned docket order was passed in I.A.No.1407 of 2025
filed by the petitioner herein on 30.07.2025 under Order XLI Rule 5 of
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking stay of the judgment and
decree passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge cum X Additional
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally on
30.06.2025 in a Suit in O.S.No.134 of 2018 filed by the respondent
company for eviction and mesne profits against the petitioner.
3. By the impugned docket order dated 23.09.2025, the Trial
Court disposed of the I.A by imposing conditions on the petitioner. The
impugned order reflects the grounds taken by the petitioner for seeking
stay of the decree. The Trial Court duly considered the submissions and
opined that stay can be granted subject to the petitioner depositing half
of the mesne profits out of the arrears of mesne profits from 13.02.2018
to September, 2025. The petitioner was to make the deposit by
06.11.2025 and continue to deposit half of the mesne profits of
Rs.25,000/- per month to the credit of the Appeal by the 10th of every
succeeding month till the disposal of the Appeal.
4. To clarify the factual situation, the petitioner herein was the
defendant in a Suit filed by the respondent company for eviction and
mesne profits. The Suit was decreed in favour of the respondent
company/plaintiff on 30.06.2025. The petitioner filed the I.A for stay of
the judgment and decree on 30.07.2025.
5. The impugned order records that the Suit was decreed in
favour of the respondent company/plaintiff by directing the
petitioner/defendant to vacate the suit schedule property within sixty
days of the decree and pay the mesne profits at the rate of Rs.25,000/-
per month from 13.02.2018 till the date of delivery of possession. The
impugned order further records that the petitioner's argument for stay of
the decree dated 30.06.2025 involved questions regarding the valuation
of the Suit and the Court fees paid by the respondent/plaintiff in the
Trial Court which could only be considered in the Appeal filed by the
petitioner from the said decree i.e., A.S.No.40 of 2025.
6. The impugned order also clarifies that the factual position of the
petitioner, being the wife of one of the Directors of the respondent
company, continued to reside in the Suit schedule property (house
owned by the respondent company) even after her husband had left the
house. The Trial Court accordingly records that the petitioner hence
continued to reside in the house owned by the respondent company only
as a spouse of one of the Directors of the company and as on the date of
filing of the Suit by the respondent/company, the petitioner's husband
(a Director of the respondent company) was not residing in the house.
7. This Court does not find any error in the reasoning reflected in
the impugned order. In fact, the Trial Court imposed conditions on the
petitioner for stay of the decree in terms of Order XLI Rule 1(3) and Rule
5(5) of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In any event, the question
sought to be raised by learned counsel for the petitioner can be
adjudicated in the pending Appeal filed by the petitioner.
8. C.R.P.No.3853 of 2025, along with all connected applications,
is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
DATE: 21.11.2025
SUS
