G. Umashankar v. Pokala Venkateshwar

HIGH COURT ITOR TIJE STA fI] OF TIILANGN NA AT IIYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWEN'I Y SFVEN'rH DAy OF DECIMBH( TWO THOUSAND AND'II,VIIN IY TWO I'RESENT THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA Civil Misccllancous ADDeal No. 5-13 of 2022 Appeal filed under order 43 Rutc r CpC, agai,st the order d,ated, 0g.07.2022 made in LA.No.128 of 2022 in o.s.No.65 of 2()21 on the file of rhe III Additional Dishict & Sessions Judge at Sangarccklr,.

Between:

G Umashankar,S/ o G. Vittalaiah, ,r\ii.tl alr.ut J3 r.t,.rrs, Occ_ Art,ocate, R/o D.No.3_ 16, Kismatpur Village, Ganclipct Mariilal, Iia^ga lictltlr. t)isrrict _ 500 0g6. '

AND ...petitioner.

1. Pokala Venkateshwar, S/o I_atc p. [i.r nt.tclt.trt{ra i.h, Agcd about 4g years, Occ_ Business, R/o H.No.l8-30/1, Zahcctl Nagar, Uppal, I f i.f"."LrrJ _ -S6ii0-t9;' "-'

Telangana State.

2. Rukkam Anantlra Rao, S/o R. lr.rs.rrl Ii.r,,. ,\1.,,1 JInlLrt 50 r.ears, Occ_ Emnlovco (General Secretary, Toshiba fr.utsnrirsi,,rr ,,,.,.i I,i..r,it.,,,t;,,. iyr'r"-, tl.ji5'pii.- _Lld)_Rudraram, Pa tanchcru. M.x.r(l.r L .\.).A.r r(,.t.1i. lri.tri.t, Tclangani Staie _ 502329.R/oH.No.51, Road No..'I, 1i,,.1.1., L..,1,,,,],, Cflonaui-,ujui, H];;;;, Telangana State-500050.

3 :,rj Iludla Projects, Reprcscnlcci l,r' rts I'rr,l,ricror., l\1. M.rllikarlun Reddy, S/o veru<u Keddy, Aged about J0 r'ears. ( )r r - Brrsirrt,ss, li/rr H.No.77, Alkapuri Colony, Pupalguda Vitlage, Cintli1.,1.1 I\l,rnrlal, R,rrrga Rtrldy Oiriii.i, il"frngu.,u State.

n 5f"!:,1-O"gistrar, Sub Registrari.. Office, Sa.garcdcly at Kashipur, Sangareddy (Respondents 1,3 and 4 are not necess.irv p.lrties)

...Respondents.

IA NO: 1OF 2022 Petition under section 151 cpc Pra'i.g that i^ trrc circumstances statecr in the affidavit filed in support of thc pctiti.., the lligh Court ma' bc preased to direct the respondent No.2 to retuntl thc .lnl()unt of Rs.15.00 lakl-rs with interest @ 24 percentage per annum fr.rn tht' tr,rtt. .r ag.t,c.rc.t .[ sarc t1t.17 /02/ 2079 to the pctitioner, pending disposal of tht, Ci\lA.

Counsel for the Appetlant: Sri D.l(arua[.rishn.r. Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri l\1.liajr,rrtlt,r Ilcrltir,. The Court made the follon'ing: ORDIlt

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA CIVIL MISCELL ANEOUS APPEAL No.543 OF 2022 MENT: (Per Hon cre Dr. SA,I ) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1 of C.P.C., is filed by the appellant/plaintiff, aggrieved by the order, dated 08.07.2022, passed in I.A.No.12B of ZO22 in O.S.No.65 of 2021, by the learned III Additional District Judge at Sangareddy, whereby the :iubject Interlocutory Application filed by the appellant/plaintiff, undei- Ordcr XXXIX Rule 10 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking to direct respondent No.2/defendant No.2 to repay him the anrount ol Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest @ 24o/o per annum rrom the date of agreement i.e., 77.02.201g, was d is m issed .

2.

Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record 3.

The Court belorar, while drsmissing the subject I.A. vide the impugned order, datcd 08.01 .2022, was pleased to record a finding in paragraptr No.5(d), n,hich reads as follows:

Dr.SA.J & NI}K,J Cirr-^.No.5.ll of 202:

"When the main suit is coming up for hearing, after filing written statement by Defendant nos.1 and 2, the present application is filed by the petitioner. Thus, prima facie, unless it is concluded that the entire amount paid by the petitioner to the respondents is Rs.1.00 crore 40 lakhs and that the contract between the parties over plot no.90 is for Rs.1.00 crore 25 lakhs, it cannot be decided that the petitioner is entitled for refund of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondents, that too without paying any court for the said a mount of Rs.15,00,000/-."

4. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that the appellant/plaintiff IS ready to pay the requisite Court fee to seek recovery/refund of : Rs.15,00,000/-.

5.

There is no much objection by the other side with regard to the payment of Court fee proposed by the appellant/plaintiff. 6.

In view of these circumstances, the appellant/plaintiff IS permitted to pay the Court fee on Rs.15,00,000/- sought to be recovered in the original Suit. It is open to the appellant/plaintiff to File an Interlocutory Application afresh seeking recovery of Rs.15,00,000/-, sub.;ect to payment of Court fee, in accordance with the procedure established under law.

I)r.S \.., & \lrK.J ( \l \-\o.51.1of:01:

J 7.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is ordered, accordingly It4iscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

Sc1/- N,l. VIjr\Y,\ Bltr\SKr\ll JOINT IiECISI'RAR t 115 / /TRUECOPY/ / str('TI()N Ol;FICIili Irr, 1 . 'I trt, Ill r\rklitional District & Sessions Judgc at Sangarc,tl,.1r. I t )rr,. r ( t' ) \ri IJ.l(em,rkrishnam, Advocatc IOPUCI

3. ()rrr,('( to Sli M li.ajender Rcdrly, Advocate [OPUC] { I rr',, (l[) Col,ios J(K $\A\

HIGH COURT DATED:27 /12/2022

ORDER

.-::-. --:l-. .'i ',-::-.- - -.1-i,-.' '' '" ' a''-'\.

) CMA.No.543 of 2022 '\ t 'lN N8 t\'

Orclering tl're C.M.A. without costs N,b CqI

I.IIGI I COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT I IYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DI:C]EMHER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY'f\,\1() PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA Civil Miscellaneous A al No. 543 of 2022 Appcal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, against thc orclcr clateci 08.07.2022 marle in 1.A.No.128 of 2022 in O.S.No.65 ol 2021 on thc file of the Ill Atlditional District & Se'ssions f udge at Sangareddy.

ll('t \\'r,(,n:

G. Ur-n.rshankar, S/ o G. Vittalaiah, Aged about 43 ycars, Occ- Arlvocatc, R/o D.No.316, Kisnratpur Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Redcil,District - 500 0S6 ANI) ...ll,titioner.

l. l'okala Venkateshwar, S/o Late P. Ramachanclraiah, Agetl itboLrt -lti vcars, ()cc- Business, R/o H.No.18-30/L, Zahecd Nagar, Uppal, I Iydera[.,ad - 50(X)39, I clangana State.

2. Iiukkam Anantha Rao, S/o R. Prasad Rao, Agecl atrout 5t) r,r.ars, f)ccF.nrPlot'ee (Gcneral Secretary, Toshiba Transmission anti liistrilrution Svstcr.rrs (lrrtlia I']vt. Ltd.) Rudraram, Patancheru Mandal, Sang.rrcrlrll [)istrict, 1'elangana State -502329. R/o H.No.51, Road No.3, Rt:tlctv Colonr,, (ihandanagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State-500050. i. Sri Ruclra Projects, Represented by its Proprietor, N4. N4allikarjun Rtddv, S/o Vcnku Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occ- Busirrcss, Ii/o I LNo.77, z\lk.rpuri Colonv, Pupalguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ilanga Redtlv District, Ie l.rngana State.

{, 'l'hc Sub-Registrar, Sub Registration Office, Sangarctldv at K;ishipur, (.r rr ga rt'ddy District.

(Rospopispls 1, 3 and 4 are not necessary parties) ...Rcsponc1e nts.

Aptrcal filccl under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, against the ordcr clatctl 08.()7.2022 maclc. in I.;\.Nrr.128 of 2022 in O.S.No.65 of 2027 on thc file of thc lll Atlclirioual Districr & Soss ions luclge at Sangareddy.

Ihis appc.aI coming on for hearing upon tl-re argut]teltts of Sri t). Iiaurakrishna .rppe.rirrii [or the appellant and of Sri M. Rajencler Reeltir', appcaring tor. thc reslrorrcit'nt No 2, this Court doth order and dccree as foliorvs: 1 'l hat thc apps[[2n1/ plaintiff is perrnitted to pav tl1(' court tcc on lis.1 :,0t),000/ - sought to be recovered in the original suit.

2. Ihat tht' apprcllant/ plaintiff is open to filc an irrtcrloctrkrn .rpplicatiorr frcsh st'e king recovery of Rs.15,00,000/- subjcct to pilvltr(,nt ot (.ourt [ee, irr itccortlance with the procedure establishcd untlcr larv

3. TI-rat theCMA ls ol'.lerccl .lcc()l (lin gl\,, rvithor.rt costs Sc1/- N'{. VUAYA BHASKAR JOTNT ITEGISTRAR 11'l IiUE a()PY/ / ( -]) SECTION OFFICER To, The III Additional District & Sc.sions [udgc. at Sangarcddy Two CD Copies s ]CK

I IICI] COUR'I D ATED:27 / 72/?0?2 DECIIEE CMA.No.l-13 ol 2()ll Orclcring thc C.N'I.A. rr rtltout costs Le'J lj