Telangana High Court
CRP/2976/2026 of Mohd. Fiaz Khan Kalidi Vs Shiva Sivani Educationla Society on 24 September 2026
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2976 OF 2026 Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated
132571
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2976 OF 2026
Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated 02-09-2026 passed in E.P. No. 16 of 2026 in O.S. No. 2 of 2006 on the file of the lll Addl District Judge, Sangareddy.
Between:
1 Mohd Fiaz Khan Kalidi, (Died per LRs)
2. IVIrs. Sayeeda Khatoon, w/o. Late Mohd. Fiaz Khan Kalidi, aged 78 years, Occ House wife, R/o. H. No.9-4-57lF, Hakimpet, Tolichowki, Hakeempet, Golconda. Hyderabad
3. lVohd. Akbar, s/o. Late Mohd. Fiaz Khan Kalidi, aged 39 years, OccBusiness, R/o. H. No 9-4-57lF, Hakimpet, Tolichowki, Hakeempet, Golconda, Hyderabad.
4 lr/ohd. Awais Khan Kalidi, s/o. Late Mohd. Fiaz Khan aged 29 years, OccBusiness, R/o. H. No.9-4-57lF, Hakimpet, Tolichowki, Hakeempet, Golconda, Hyderabad. (Petitioners 2lo 4 are rep. by their GPA Holder tvlr.
Abdul Wajid, s/o Mohammed Abdul Waheed, age 40 years, OccBusiness'
R/o. Plot No.28, IAS Colony, Tolichowki, Golconda, Hyderabad)
...PETITIONERS
AND
1. Shiva Sivani Educationla Society, Hyderabad, rep. by rts Secretary Sivaraj Sampath i.
2 K. Santosh Kumar, S/o K. Baswara.;, age 40 years, Occ Business, R/o H.No 4-5-202, Old Gunj, Vikarabad, R.R. District.
3. A Narsimha Rao, s/o. tr,4usalaiah, age 65 years, Occ Agriculture' R/o. tvlaryall village, R.R. District
4. tt4. Janga Reddy, S/o. l\/ A/anga Reddy Business, aged 60 years, Occ Business and Agriculture, Rio, Plot No 105, North Kamalanagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2026
Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bt: pleased to suspend the impugned order passed in the E.P. No.16 of 2026 rn O S.No 2 of 2006, dtd.
02.09.2026, on the file of the lll Additional District Judge, Sangareddy, and allow the E.P No 16 of 2026 in O S.No 2 of 2006
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circurtstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the General Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner to repres€ nt and prosecute the present CRP on behalf of the petitioner.
Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri. K L N Raghavendra Rr:ddy Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: - Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Sri. T. Satish Kumar The Court made the following : ORDER '
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2976 ol2026
C.N.R.No.HBHC01 0631 492026
24 SEPTEMBER
Between
Mohd. Fiaz Khan Kalidi (Died per LRs) and 3 others Petitioners
AND
Shiva Sivani Educational Society and 3 others Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
:ORDER:
Challenging the order, dated 02 09 2026 passed in E.P.No.'16 of 2026 in O.S.No.2 of 2006 by the learned lll Additional Distrlct Judge at Sangareddy (for short, the 'Executing Court'), this Civil Revision Petition is filed.
2. Heard Mr. K.L.N.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner No.1 filed a civil suit vlde O.S.t.lo.2 of 2006 against the respondents herein seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated
14. U.2004. After conducting trial and hearing both sides, the learned Special Judge-cum-V Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, by judgment anrj decree, dated 08.04.2010, decreed the suit and directed respondent No..l to execute a register sale deed in favour of the petitioners herein, within a period of one (1) month, from the date of judgnrent and decree. lnstead of complying with the same, responden.. No.4 preferred A.S.No.842 of 2010, which was dismissed by this Court on 13.12.2024. The S L.P. (Civit) Diary No.19049 ctf 2O2S and the subsequent Review Petition (Civil) Diary No.27513 of 2026 were also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05.05.2025 and 14.07.2026 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioners filed E p.No 16 of 2026 seeking execution of the re-gistered sale deerd and delivery of possession of the suit schedule property in their favour. The said E.P. was dismissed by the Executing Court on 02.0g.2026, mainly on the grounds that the delay in depositing the balance sale consideration was not satisfactorily explained and that the draft sale deed was filed without disclosing the non-deposit ol the balance sale consideration. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present revrsron
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the decree became enforceable only upon dismissal of the Review petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14.07.2026 ard therefore the question of limitation has to be considered from the said date, in view of the doctrine of merger. He submits that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.13,66,300/-, Rs.2,00,000/- had already been deposited. He further submits that there was no specific direction in the decree requiring the petitioners to deposit balance sale consideration, as contemplated under Order XX read with Rule '12-A of C.P.C and that the petltioners are always ready and willing to deposit the balance sale consideration. lt was respondent No.1 who failed to execute the registered sale.deed within the time stipulated by the trial Court. He further submits that the petitioners are ready to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.11,66,300/- and are also ready to file an affidavit to that extent. He fu(her submits that there was no deliberate suppression of non-deposit of balance sale consideration and the said omission was purely inadvertent and not intentional. Hence, he prayed to set aside the order, dated 02.09.2026 passed in E.P.No.'16 ot 2026 in O.S.No.2 of 2006 by the Executing Court.
Having regard to the fact that the petitioners are ready to file an affidavit that they are ready and willing to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.'1 1,66,300/-, without going into the merits and demerits of the case, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order, dated 02.09.2026 passed in E.p.No.16 of 2026 in O S.No.2 of 2006 by the learned lll Additionat District Judge at Sangareddy The petitioners shall file an affidavit before the Executing Court, undertaking to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.1i,66,3OO/_ in O.S.No.2 of 2006. On such affidavit being filed, the learned lll Additional District Judge at Sangareddy, shall consider the matter afresh, on its own merits, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter, after affording an opportunity to both sides. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, snall stand closed ,TRUE COPYII SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The lll Addl. District Judge, Sangareddy
2. One CC to SRt K L N RAGHAVENDRA REDDYAdvocare tOpUCl
3. One CC to SRt T SATTSH KUIVAR Advocate topUCl
4. Two CD Copies TPI(GNK \qr
HIGH COURT DATED: 2410912026 ..';7 jiiif $i,'4;;' ., -.t.t -' /' n' I, .:) l,i t}1rlrT 2ffi \...' ,. . , _, ,.,.\) :-- ,..:,\
ORDER
CRP.No.2976 of 2026 CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS ALLOWED b .9S"J" ;3o."-* \,