Santosht Kumar K v. M/S. Suman Chit Fund Private Limited
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 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:358 3 0F 2023 Petition Under Article 115 of civil Procedure code against the order dated o4t1ot2ll3 passed in r.p ilo]r"ri71 'of 2O1i in IBR/CF/N;. 309 of 2020 on the ir" oi tf'" Corrt of ll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad' Between:
1. Santosht Kumar K, S/o. Gopal K , aged.45 years' Occ' Office Subordinate Hiqh court ot iuoiiJiuiel't,i,l.t -X' - Madina' Hvderabad , Rio H No'
i -1' t odi nar o, vl"ivii Nisar' Gol naka, Amberpet' Hvderabad
2. Mani, Rao E, S/o Bheemaiah E Aged 40 years Occ Sr'/ Technical Asst B DERI DRDO, Xrn"nr"nir6fr."nIViL"ourJ frio. H No 2-3-79OtBt15tAI13ER' Plot No.6, rurasi r.raga'i ftl'm"N;6;i [jtk' Golnaka' Amberpet' Hyderabad
3. Raiu. S, S/o. S. Laxman Aged 42 years, Office Subordinate High Court .of " i,)iilrtii."l'dor-rt i, n/|i?ini,"ivo"ia6aa R/o Ftat No 102. Laxmi Apartments, Venkateshwar Colony Jillelaguda, Hyderabad PETITIONERS/JDRs '1,2 & 4 AND M/s. Suman Chit Fund Private Limited, Ranigun.i Branch' rep by its Foremen/br. Manager Mr' S. Narahari ...RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER The Registrar, (Admin) High Court of Telangana, Madina Hyderabad The Accounts Officer, DRDL, Kanchanbagh' Hyderabad J ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Subir Kumar, G.S., S/o. G T Surya Prakash Aged 47 years' R/o H No 262' Lal Bazat. Tirumalgherry Secunderabad K. Haritha, Wo. Santosh Kumar Aged 35 years, Rio H No 2-2-1093182110 Vinayaka Nagar, Golkana. Amberpet, Hyderabao
S. Ramesh, S/o. Narsimha, S. Aged 52 years, Proprietor, Sai Digital P^hoto^.. Studio H No. '1-10-197, Ashok N5gar, Hyderabad R/o H No. 1-3-183/39/0i6l1 ' Tallabasti, Kavadiguda. Musheera-bad. Hyderabad .. Respondents Respondents 3, 5 and 6 Respondents 4 to 6 are not necessary partles ln thls CRP ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDEDNTS 3,5 and 6 lA NO: 'f OF 2023 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 susPEND the operation of the order of Salary Attachment warrant dated o4l1ot2o23 passed in E.P. No. 1077 of 2022in ABR/CFINo.309 of 2020 on the file of court of the ll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, pending disposal of main CRP.
Counsel for the Petitioners : SRl. AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRl. VIVEK JAIN The Court made the following: OROER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CTYIL REVISION PETITION No.3583 of 2023
ORDER
The challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 04.10.2023 passed in E.P.No.1077 of 2022 in ABR/CF/No.309 of 2O2O by the learned II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.
2.
I'Ieard Sri Ajay Kumar Madisetty, learned counsel for Lhe petitioners and Sri Vivck Jain, learned counsel for the respondcnt \ No.2.
\ 3.
Vide the said impugned crder, the Court below has attached the salaries of the petitioners herein. During the course of hearing, what I I has been rcflected is that there was an arbitration ar'r'ard which was passcd as early as on O6.01.2022 by the Deputy I?egistrar of Chits / Arbitrator. The said arbitration award is under challenge by way of an appeal before the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Telangana, which is accompanied by an application for interim relief also. There does not seem to be any dispute so far as interim relief having been obtained or not.
4.
In the teeth of the arbitration award being under challenge bcfore the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Tclangana, and also in the light of an irrterim application being filed
with the appeal and which are pending consideration, this Court does not Iind any strong case made out by the petitioners calling for an interference to the impugned order. Nonetheless, the right of the petitioners to pursue the appeal and also the interim application would be left open.
5.
Accordingly, the present Civil Revision petition is rejected No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall sland closed.
SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.
//TRUE COPYII v/ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The ll Junior Civit Judge, City Civit Court at Hyderabad 2 One CC to SRl. AJAY KUMAR MAD|SETTY, Advocate tOpUCl
3. One CC to SRl. VTVEK JA|N, Advocate tOpUCI
4. Two CD Copies ADK I
HIGH COURT DATED:2111212023 1re SlAr6'
( o
ORDER
Co 2t24 [ 5 jlri i '/ * CRP.No.3583 of 2023 -.:
.) D j-: j pr'1. i.- REJECTING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS $^I \*