IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.3406 and 3424 of 2024

17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 Between:

Mr. Md. Khalid …Petitioner/defendant and Mr. Mohammed Khaja Aijaz Ali …Respondent/plaintiff

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.A.Basith, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

2. The C.R.P.No.3406 of 2024 is preferred by the petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the order dated 10.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.313 of 2024 in O.S.No.260 of 2017 passed by the learned XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘Trial Court), wherein, the said I.A filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint in O.S.No.260 of 2017, has been dismissed.

3. The C.R.P.No.3424 of 2024 is preferred by the petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the order dated 05.10.2024 passed in I.A.No.512 of 2024 in I.A.No.313 of 2024 in O.S.No.260 of 2017 passed by the learned XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘Trial Court), wherein, the said I.A filed under Order XLIII Rule 11 of CPC to review the order dated 10.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.313 of 2024 in O.S.No.260 of 2017, has been dismissed.

4. Though the Civil Revision Petitions (CRPs) arise out of orders passed in different Interlocutory Applications filed in O.S.No.260 of 2017 by the Trial Court, since the common issue to be decided is one and the same, both of them are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/ plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.260 of 2017 before the Trial Corut for recovery of Rs.12,40,000/- with interest at 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation. The suit was filed on the basis of a Business Investment (Partnership) Agreement, dated 10.11.2016 vide document No.530/IV/2016, wherein, the respondent had invested Rs.8,00,000/- in the transport business run by the revision petitioner. In said Business Agreement at Clause 4, the parties were given option to discontinue with the agreement by giving a (90) day notice period, wherein, the petitioner had to refund the Investment of the respondent i.e. Rs.8,00,000/-. The respondent issued legal notice dated 02.01.2017 calling upon the revision petitioner to refund his investment amount within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. As per Clause 4, when the legal notice was issued on 02.01.2017, the 90-day notice period would expire on 01.04.2017. While so, the respondent without waiting for expiry of the 90-day notice period instituted a suit on 07.03.2017. Therefore, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.313 of 2024 in the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of plaint for filing the suit before the expiry of the 90-day notice. The Trial Court dismissed said Interlocutory Application. Then the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.2113 of 2024 challenging the order dated 10.06.2024. At that time, with the permission of this Court, the petitioner had withdrawn the said C.R.P with a liberty to file review application before the Trial Court. The petitioner filed Review Application vide I.A.No.512 of 2024 in I.A.No.313 of 2024 in O.S.No.260 of 2017. Said Review Application was dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2024. Thus, C.R.P.No.3406 of 2024 is filed challenging the order in I.A.No. 313 of 2024 i.e., dismissal of order in Order VII Rule 11 CPC petition and C.R.P.No.3424 of 2024 is filed challenging the dismissal order in the Review Petition i.e., I.A.No.512 of 2024 in I.A.No.313 of 2024 in O.S.No.260 of 2017.

6. In grounds of revision, the petitioner pleaded that the suit was filed on 07.03.2017, when the legal notice was issued on 02.01.2017, only after lapse of 65 days of the notice period. In that context, reference is made to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [(1977) 4 SCC 46