THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2797 OF 2023 Dated: 27.04.2026 Between:

Smt. Bandaru Pushpalatha … Petitioner – Respondent No.1 - Plaintiff And

1.M/s.Legend Estates Private Limited, Office at:6-3-1238, Sixth Floor, Legand Apartment, Renuka Enclave, Lane Opp. Necklace Road Railway Station, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda Hyderabad – 500 082 Represented by its Managing Director B.Nageshwar Rao S/o. B.Chennaiah Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business.

… Respondent No.1–Petitioner–Defendant No.1

2.Vinod Patangey and 5 others … Respondents Nos.2 to 7 – respondent Nos.2 to 7 –

Defendant Nos.2 to 7

ORDER

1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order passed by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.1394 of 2019 in O.S.No.817 of 2019 dated

21.06.2023.

2.1 Petitioner is the respondent No.1 – plaintiff, respondent No.1 is the petitioner – defendant No.1 and respondent Nos.2 to 7 are the respondent Nos.2 to 7 – defendant Nos.2 to 7 in I.A.No.1394 of 2019 in O.S.No.817 of 2019.

2.2 For the sake of convenience the parties will be hereinafter referred to as petitioner – respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 – petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner – respondent No.1 submits that the learned Trial Court without appreciating the case has allowed the application filed by the respondent No.1 – petitioner and driven them to appear before the Arbitrator to adjudicate the lis in terms of the alleged development agreement dated 10.07.2016 and supplementary agreement dated Nil.07.2016. The learned Trial Court failed to observe that the respondent No.1 – petitioner took different stands in the later suit vide O.S.No.269 of 2021 by stating that there was no necessity for appointment of Arbitrator as contemplated in the registered development agreement and ought to have dismissed the application on the ground that the documents dated 10.07.2016 and 11.07.2016 are antidated and brought into existence. The learned Trial Court without taking pain in deciding the matter simply allowed the application by directing the parties to approach the arbitrator, wrongly came to a conclusion that the dispute entails voluminous and extensive evidence, complicated issue can be decided in arbitration and having proclivity of criminal facet and there it shall not be proper preferment at the instance case. Apparently on the face of the alleged documents dated 10.07.2016 and 11.07.2016 are antidated and fabricated which was clearly observed by the learned Trial Court as there is no genuinity in the said documents and they are not valid documents even if they were registered, referring the matter to the arbitrator is nothing but causing some sought of litigation which ought to have decided by the Civil Court but not the arbitrator. The learned Trial Court failed to observe the conduct of the respondent No.1 – petitioner who has created those documents for wrongful gain and the said documents cannot be accepted for any purpose even for referring the matter to the arbitrator. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Jagdish Chander Vs. Ramesh Chander¹ (ii) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited and another Vs. M/s.Deepak Cables (india) Limited2 (iii) Foomill Private Limited Vs. Affle (India) Limited³ (iv) Blue Star Limited Vs. Rahul Saraf⁴ and prayed to allow the CRP.

1 AIR OnLine 2007 SC 107

AIR 2014 SC 1626 = (2014) 11 SCC 148

(2022) 2 High Court Cases (Del) 98

AIR 2003 (NOC) 601 (CAL)

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 – petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case by taking into consideration the arbitration clause in the documents dated 10.07.2016 and -.07.2016. In support of his contentions has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Vidya Drolia and o