THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2702 of 2022

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 22.08.2022 in I.A. No. 41 of 2021 in O.S. No. 04 of 2021 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge- Cum- II Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-Principal Family Judge, Kukatpally, Medhcal-Malkajgiri District.

2. The revision petitioners herein are the defendants in the main Suit.

3. The respondent herein filed the subject suit as plaintiff vide O.S. No. 4 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 1 r/w Section 26 of CPC for recovery of damages.

4. The respondent herein had filed an interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 41 of 2021 in O.S. No. 04 of 2021 under Order 38 Rule 5 r/w. section 151 of Civil procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) to call upon the petitioners herein for furnishing security against the suit amount of Rs.2,13,46,175/- (Rupees Two crores Thirteen lakhs forty-six thousand one hundred and seventy five only).

5. The parties are referred to as per their position in the present revision petition.

6. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein is a retired employee of HMT Limited and the absolute owner of plots bearing Nos. 204A and 205A (each admeasuring 400 sq. yards) situated in Western Hills (Addagutta Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.), Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District; that the respondent had acquired the same through registered sale deeds in the years 1996 and 2008 and constructed a residential-cum- commercial complex on the said property after obtaining requisite ULC clearances and BPS/LRS permissions.

7. It is further the case of the respondent that in the said building the ground and first floors were specifically designated and constructed for non-residential purpose; that between the years 2012 and 2013, the petitioners purchased the respective flats in the respondent building i.e., petitioner/defendant No.1 purchased Flat No. 201 through a registered sale deed dated 06.04.2013, petitioner/defendant No.2 purchased Flat No. 303 through a registered sale deed dated 20.04.2012, petitioner/defendant No.3 purchased Flat No. 305 through a registered sale deed dated 15.02.2013, and petitioner/defendant Nos. 4 and 5 jointly purchased Flat No. 205 through a registered sale deed dated 16.08.2013; and that all the above sale deeds are registered at the Sub-Registrar Office, Kukatpally.

8. Before the court below the respondent further contended that the petitioners herein filed consumer complaints against the respondent before the District Consumer Forum, alleging misrepresentation about the nature of construction, wherein interim orders were passed restraining the respondent from letting out or selling the ground and first floors of the building constructed by him. The petitioners herein filed a petition for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for verification of physical features of the building; and that the Advocate Commissioner, appointed by the court had confirmed that the ground and first floors were constructed for non-residential use and lacked duct systems which indicates residential occupation. On 06.03.2019, the Consumer Forum dismissed all the complaints, and the petitioners herein did not file any appeals. However, due to the pendency of these false cases, the respondent suffered a rental loss from March 2014 inasmuch as the prospective tenants, including reputed companies such as Heritage, withdrew from entering into lease agreements owing to the subsistence of interim orders.

9. The trial court in the underlying interlocutory application filed by the respondent vide I.A. No. 41 of 2021 in O.S. No. 04 of 2021 issued the orders of warrant dated. 22.08.2022 and directed the petitioners herein to furnish the security of Rs.2,13,46, 175/- within 48 hours from the receipt of the said notice and on failure to do so, the Court Bailiff was directed to attach the Petition Schedule Property. By observing as above, the trial Court has allowed the I.A