IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD Civil Revision Petition. No.480 of 2026 Between:

Sri Naralasetty Pavan Chandra Nagoor.

And ...Judgment Debtor/Petitioner Sri Ravi Kumar Meruva ...Decree Holder/Respondent ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 17.03.2026 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

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 __________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,J * THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR + Civil Revision Petition. No.480 of 2026 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar)

%Dated 17.03.2026 #Between:

Sri Naralasetty Pavan Chandra Nagoor ...Judgment Debtor/Petitioner And Sri Ravi Kumar Meruva ...Decree Holder/Respondent ! Counsel for petitioner : Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Naresh Sunkara, learned counsel for the petitioner ^Counsel for Respondent : Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K.Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the respondent.

GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred:

1. AIR 1973 MAD. 141

2. (2001) 5 SCC 265

3. Special Leave to appeal (Crl.) No.1722 of 2024 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD.

****

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Civil Revision Petition.No.480 of 2026 DATE :17-03-2026 Between :

Sri Naralasetty Pavan Chandra Nagoor.

…Judgment Debtor/Petitioner And Sri Ravi Kumar Meruva …Decree Holder/Respondent ORDER:(per Hon’ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar Heard Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Sri Naresh Sunkara, learned counsel on record for the petitioner and Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Sri K.Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2026 passed in C.E.P.No.6 of 2025 by the learned Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District (Trial Court), wherein the execution petition filed by the Decree Holder under Order XXI Rule 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for attachment of the schedule immovable property under Order XXI Rule 54 of CPC for realization of the decretal amount by sale of the attached property under Order XXI Rules 64 to 66 of CPC, was allowed by the impugned order.

3. The main ground of challenge is as to whether the decree holder is entitled to enforce the judgment and decree passed by the Federal Court of Sharjah, Primary Court and whether the decree holder is entitled for attachment of the EP Schedule Properties.

4. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the Trial Court.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the decree holder and the judgment debtor entered into an agreement to establish a company for the purpose of trading medical equipment in the free zone of the Emirate of Sharjah, wherein the decree holder will hold 90% of the company capital and the judgment debtor shall hold 10% of the company capital. Subsequently, both the decree holder and the judgment debtor entered into a Share Transfer Agreement dated 11.03.2022 transferring 90% of his share holding in ADICOMED in favour of the judgment debtor for an amount of 135 USD but the judgment debtor using his position in the company fraudulently transferred the funds of the company to his personal account, which are not related to the company and embezzled an amount of

10,79,299.50 AE, as such, the decree holder filed Urgent Case No.5712 of 2022 before the Sharjah Court for appointment of Accounting Expert to review the company account from 05.04.2020 to 11.03.2022, who filed his report on 10.11.2022 and held that certain funds were transferred from the account of the company to the personal account of the j