THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1933 AND 2687 OF 2023 Dated: 21.04.2026 In CRP.Nos.1933 and 2687 of 2023 Between:

1.Sri Srikanth Bhima and another … Petitioners-Respondents-Defendants And

1.Sri Sudarshanam Shashidhar (died per LRs)

…Respondent No.1-Petitioner - Plaintiff 2.Thirunagari Archana and two others … Respondent Nos.2 to 4 (During pendency of CRPs respondent No.1 died and his LRs are brought on record as Respondent Nos.2 to 4 as per Court Order dated 31.01.2025 vide I.A.No.2 of 2024 in both CRPs.)

COMMON ORDER

1. These Memorandum of Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the orders passed by learned V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.1768 of 2022 in O.S.No.5214 of 2022, dated 26.04.2023 and I.A.No.920 of 2023 in I.A.No.1768 of 2022 in O.S.No.5214 of 2022, dated 31.07.2023.

2.1 CRP.No.1933 of 2023 is filed by the petitioners-respondents- defendants against the order passed by the learned Trial Court in I.A.No.1768 of 2022 in O.S.No.5214 of 2022 dated 26.04.2023, which is filed by the respondent No.1 – petitioner - plaintiff under Order XV - A r/w Section 151 of CPC for deposit of entire arrears of rent by the petitioners - respondents – defendants, which came to be allowed on the above said date.

2.2 CRP.No.2687 of 2023 is filed by the petitioners – respondents - defendants assailing the orders passed in I.A.No.920 of 2023 in I.A.No.1768 of 2022 in O.S.No.5214 of 2022 dated 31.07.2023 which is filed by the respondent No.1 – petitioner - plaintiff under Order XV – A(2) r/w Section 151 of CPC to strike off the defence of the petitioners – respondents - defendants for not complying with the orders in I.A.No.1768 of 2022 dated 26.04.2023 which came to be allowed on the above said date.

3.1 Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.5214 and 2022. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the legal heirs of respondent No.1 – plaintiff.

3.2 For the sake of convenience, the parties arrayed in CRP.No.1933 of 2023 will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioners – respondents, respondents -petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners - respondents in both CRPs submits that the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the importance of Exs.R1 to R6 which are crucial documents, which clearly reflects the truth and genuineness about the contention of the petitioners – respondents that they are the actual owners of the subject property. The learned Trial Court failed to look into Ex.R1 which is executed by the vendors of the suit schedule property in favor of petitioner No.2 – respondent No.2 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as an advance. The learned Trial Court has completely brushed aside this crucial document. There is no relationship between the petitioners – respondents and the respondents - petitioners, there is no necessity to the petitioner No.2 – respondent No.2 to pay an advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the vendor of the suit schedule property. The learned Trial Court also failed to look into Ex.R2 receipt and other documents filed by the petitioners – respondents, failed to look into the case of the respondent No.1 - petitioner which rest on oral lease agreement on a monthly rent of Rs.75,000/-, failed to consider that there is no rental advance given or taken between the parties or any kind of security deposit and there is no jural relationship of tenant and landlord. The learned Trial Court failed to take note that respondent No.1 - petitioner cause title shows that he is permanent resident of Sangareddy District and he has leased out the premises to petitioners - respondents without any lease agreement for a property worth more than Rs.2 crores. The petitioners – respondents have never threatened the respondent No.1 - petitioner at any point of time. The learned Trial Court failed to take note that the petitioners – respondents were depos