##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

C.R.P.No.779 of 2025

Date 29.12.2025

Between:

Medikonda Kiran Peter John

… Petitioner

and

C. Anand Reddy

…Respondent

ORDER:

Heard Mr.Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel for the

petitioner-defendant and Mr.Vootukuri Raghuveer, learned counsel for

the respondent-plaintiff.

2. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.12.2024 passed in I.A.No.526 of

2024 in O.S.No.79 of 2021 by the learned Principal District and Sessions

Judge-Cum-Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri, the

present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner wherein, the

2

petition filed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 has been allowed attaching

property before judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted an

additional affidavit on behalf of the revision petitioner with the following

undertaking:

“I state that by way of impugned order, dated 05.12.2024, the learned trial

court had allowed the petition seeking attachment of the property on the

ground that I am trying to alienate the schedule property to third parties to

defeat the decree that may be passed in the suit. I state that the said

observation has been made without any supporting evidence in respect of the

said pleadings in the application. I state that I am not interested in selling the

property. I state that the respondent/plaintiff has not filed any evidences to

support his claim that I am trying to making hectic attempts to alienate,

dispose, or create third party interest over the petition schedule property. I

state that the learned trial court did not have any material before it, to arrive

at a conclusion that I am trying to alienate/dispose the property in order to

defeat the decree that may be passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.”

4. Learned counsel for the respondent expressed satisfaction with

respect to the undertaking given by the revision petitioner to the effect

that the suit schedule property shall not be dispossessed or alienated

during the pendency of the suit but expressed disagreement with the

remaining part of the undertaking about leasing the suit schedule

property to prospective tenants.

3

5. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel, it is

seen that only attachment of the property before judgment is the subject

matter before this Court but not the issue of leasing out of the suit

schedule property. Therefore, this Court has considered the affidavit to

the extent of undertaking given by the revision petitioner about not

alienating the suit schedule property during pendency of the suit. The

issue of leasing out the said property shall be decided by the trial Court

after hearing both the parties.

6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside

the impugned order subject to undertaking given with respect to the

revision petitioner not alienating the suit schedule property during the

pendency of the suit. The undertaking with respect to leasing out the

suit schedule property shall be decided by the learned trial Court in

accordance with law. No costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this petition, shall stand

closed.

________________________

JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

Date: 29.12.2025

Note: Issue CC by Monday

(BO)Bj