##PAGE1##

IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1033 of 2025

29^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

Between:

Sangam Ramulu

…Petitioner/plaintiff

and

Malluri Kondal Rao and another

…Respondents/defendants

ORDER:

1. Heard Mr. P. Vivek Kumar Naik, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Ms. Hina Malhotra, learned counsel for the

respondents. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision petition is preferred aggrieved by the

order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned II Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at

Medchal (for short ‘the Trial Court’) in I.A.No.112 of 2024 in

O.S.No.70 of 2024, wherein, a petition filed under Order 38

Rule 6(1) r/w 151 of CPC has been dismissed.

::2::

3. The learned Trial Court has dismissed the petition on

the sole ground that the properties sought to be attached are

not within the jurisdiction of Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The

relevant portion is extracted and produced below:

“11. On perusal of the petition, it appears that ‘A’

schedule property is not within the jurisdiction of

this Court. So also ‘B’ schedule property is not

within the jurisdiction of this court. As such, this

court has no jurisdiction to attach the property ‘A’

and ‘B’ schedule properties. Therefore, the petition is

liable to be dismissed.”

4. The revision petitioner referred to Section 136 of CPC

wherein procedure is prescribed for arrest of a person or

property to be attached which is situated outside the

jurisdiction of the court. Said text is extracted and produced

below:

“136. Procedure where person to be arrested or

property to be attached is out side district

(1) Where an application is made that any person

shall be arrested or that any property shall be

attached under any provision of this Code not

relating to the execution of decrees, and such person

resides or such property is situate outside the local

limits of the jurisdiction of the Court to which the

application is made, the Court may, in its discretion,

issue, a warrant of arrest of make an order of

attachment, and send to the District Court within

::3::

the local limits of whose jurisdiction such person or

property resides or is situate a copy of the warrant

or order, together with the probable amount of the

costs of the arrest or attachment.”

5. The above section of CPC clearly demonstrates that a

civil court may pass orders for attachment with respect to

property which is situated outside its jurisdiction and send

attachment order to the District Court whose local limits or

jurisdiction such property is situated. Therefore, there was a

clear error in the order passed by the learned Trial Court in the

impugned I.A.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner

submitted that schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties stand in the

name of respondent No.1 and 2 respectively and it is necessary

that they are attached in order to ensure that the decree is

satisfied.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the

revision petition alleging that schedule ‘A’ property is already

attached by a bank and said property is not available for

attachment. Further, it is submitted that schedule ‘B’ property

stands in the name of respondent No.2 and that a wife’s

property may not be attached to satisfy the decree passed

::4::

against her husband respondent No.1. Further, it is

emphasized that schedule ‘B’ property is not purchased from

the proceeds of the business and therefore, there are no

grounds or no merits in the Revision Petition.

8. It is seen that as per registered sale deed document

No.1415 of 2010, dated 03.05.2010, schedule ‘A’ property

stands in the name of respondent No.1 and as per registered

sale deed document No.2698 of 2018, dated 11.09.2018,

schedule ‘B’ property stands in the name of respondent No.2

who is the wife. As per cheques furnished at page Nos.59 to 76

of the material papers, they were issued by respondent No.1 in

the name of company and summary suits were also filed in that

regard. The respondent No