IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ::

HYDERABAD * * *

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.704 of 2026 Between:

M/s. Swiggy Limited.

Petitioner VERSUS M/s.Agromech Industries and others.

Respondents ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 12.03.2026 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

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 ________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY + CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.704 of 2026 % 12.03.2026 # Between:

M/s. Swiggy Limited.

Petitioner VERSUS M/s.Agromech Industries and others.

Respondents ! Counsel for petitioner : Mr. L.Ravichandar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.V.Akarsh.

^Counsel for respondent No.1 : N.Vimal Kumar.

GIST:

> HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred

1) (2008) 2 SCC 302 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.704 of 2026 DATE: 12.03.2026 Between:

M/s. Swiggy Limited.

…Petitioner AND M/s.Agromech Industries and others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Mr. L.Ravichandar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.V.Akarsh, learned counsel on record for the petitioner; and Mr. N.Vimal Kumar, learned counsel on record for respondent No.1. 2. The instant Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 25.02.2026, in I.A.No.1296 of 2025 in O.S.No.01 of 2025, passed by the XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.

3. The petitioner herein is the defendant No.1 and respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. For convenience, the parties are being addressed in respect of their status before the Trial Court.

4. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court partly allowed the I.A.No.1296 of 2025 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking for attachment before judgment of the movable property belonging to the plaintiff.

5. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the plaintiff had filed a suit before the Trial Court for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.58,60,302/-. The suit is against the alleged supplies made by the plaintiff to the defendant Nos.1 to 11, who in turn, have not repaid the said amount to the tune of Rs.39,59,664.60/- in spite of the requests made. Since the repayment was not made, adding interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the period between 16.03.2022 to 16.11.2024 amounting to Rs.19,00,638/-, a money suit amounting to a total of Rs.58,60,302/- was filed.

6. It is said that the summons were duly served and the defendants failed to enter appearance and for which they were proceeded ex parte on 01.11.2025. Subsequently, one application under Order IX Rule 7 read of CPC was filed on behalf of the defendant No.1; however, the same was returned by the Trial Court as it was filed without any authorization. Meanwhile, the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.1296 of 2025 seeking attachment before judgment of the movable property belonging to the plaintiff i.e. the current bank account maintained with the HDFC Bank Ltd., Koramangala Branch, Bengaluru.

7. It is this application filed by the plaintiff which was partly allowed by the Trial Court leading to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition. 8. Before proceeding further with the present Civil Revision Petition, it would be relevant at this juncture to reproduce the findings given by the Trial Court in the course of passing the order of attachment before judgment. For ready reference, paragraph Nos.5 to 8 of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder, viz.,

“5. The power under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC is extraordinary and

must be exercised sparingly and cautiously, in order to set attachment

of Suit Schedule property Bank account. The plaintiff must prima fa