* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA + CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2218 of 2019 % 15-10-2025 # Mr. Alati Venkataramana Reddy & Mr. M. Prabhakar Rao.

…Petitioners vs.

$ Sri Bhagwan Sri Balasai Baba Central Trust & others.

… Respondents !Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Pratusha Boppana, learned counsel for the petitioners on record.

^Counsel for the Respondents : Sri A. Sai Chakravarthy, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

>Head Note :

? Cases referred:

1. 1992 (1) ALT 583

2. AIR 2002 AP 68

3. 2010 (2) KHC 281 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD * * * *

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2218 of 2019 Between:

Mr. Alati Venkataramana Reddy & Mr. M. Prabhakar Rao.

…Petitioners vs.

Sri Bhagwan Sri Balasai Baba Central Trust & others.

… Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 15.10.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes ________________________________________________ JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2218 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India being aggrieved by the orders of the learned XV Additional District Judge-cum-XV Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-II Additional Family Judge, Kukatpally, R.R. District at Kukatpally vide S.R.No.5990 of 2019 in O.S.No.210 of 2019 wherein the learned Judge permitted the plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration amount into the credit of the suit with immediate effect and subsequently on request, the time was extended and further time was granted from 03.07.2019 to 11.09.2019 for plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are that the plaintiffs have instituted the suit seeking a relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 14.02.2002 with Memorandum of Understanding dated 31.08.2005 executed by and between defendant Nos.1 to 3 herein on one hand and plaintiffs on the other, in the capacity of vendors and vendees. In addition to the above relief, plaintiffs as consequential reliefs, also seek declaration as null and void of various documents executed by the defendants clandestinely and in collusion with each other so as to defeat the rights of the agreement of sale read with MOU.

3. The main grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that at the very inception of the plaint perfunctorily and without considering the legal position, the Court below has permitted the petitioners to deposit the balance sale consideration vide docket order dated 15.06.2019 i.e., even before the subject suit came up for the first time and much less even before the respondents had entered appearance.

4. It is further contended that even though the petitioners made an attempt to apprise the legal position on 19.06.2019 by citing the applicable case law and after hearing the arguments on the said issue at length, the Court below posted the matter to 01.07.2019 and 15.07.2019 in tandem for orders and it is further contended that the learned Judge vide docket order dated 15.07.2019 on the said issue with adverting to either to the arguments or the case law as cited by the petitioners/plaintiffs.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed contending that the said direction by way of permission given by the learned Judge is against the provisions of law and equality in fair play. It is further contended that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the deposit of balance sale consideration at such a preliminary stage of the suit is against the principles of equity and good conscience, having regard to heavy sums of