Telangana High Court
CRP/378/2026 of Lebaku Venkata Subba Reddy Vs Bajaj Finance Limited on 6 February 2026
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 378 OF 2026 Petition Under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia against the order dated 22-01-2026 in l.A.No.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 378 OF 2026
Petition Under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia against the order dated 22-01-2026 in l.A.No. 46 ot 2026 in O.S.No. 05 of 2026 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge - cum -Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Kukatpally, Medc hal-Malkajg iri District.
Between:
Lebaku Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o Sankar Reddy Aged about 32 years, Occ Govt.
Employee R/o Chinna Gopavaram, Cuddapah,Andhrapradesh - 524341 . Presently residing at Flat No. 2SF, Block No.64, PJR nagar, Yellamm_abanda, Kukatpally,Hyderabad-500072, TS
...PETITIONER/ Plaintiff
AND
1. Bajaj Finance Limitefl, Represented by its MD Rajeev Jain, No. 1, F2, Siva Prakasam Nest, 22no S B Sector Siva Sakthi NGR , Annan, Chennal Tamilnadu-600109
2. lclcl Bank, Represented by its MD Sandeep Bakhshi, lClCl Bank Tower, Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara 390007, Gujarat
3. Cholamandalam Finance/, Represented by its MD Ravindra Kumar Kundu, "Chola Crest", C54-55 85 Super B-4, Thiru-Vi-Ka lndustrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai - 600032, Tamil Nadu
4. HDFC Bank, Represented by its MD Shashidhar Jagdishan, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai - 400 013
...RESPONDENTS/ Defendants
lA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC R/w. Section 151 of CPC
praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant ad-interim injunction in restraining the Respondents their agents, attorneys, relatives, friends, henchmen, unsocial elements, third parties and whosoever under from visiting and/or interfering with the day to day activities of life of the Petitioner by visiting his residential premises, office or any other place where the Petitioner may reside for the time being except according to due process of law in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. P.B.A. RATNAMALA, REPRESENTING
SRI. P VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents:
The Court made the following ORDER:
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF :i
'LANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKST MAN
CTVIL REVISION PETITION NO.378 OI 2026
DATE OF ORDER: 06.02.2026
Between:
Lebaku Venkata Subba Reddy.
Pet I oner/plaintiff.
AND
Bajaj Finance Limited and three others.
Responde r s/Defendants.
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.
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Mrs.P.B.A.Ratnamala, learned couns(: representing Mr.P.Varnsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the : -'titioner.
2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Ani :le 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated I 2.01.2026 it I.A.No.46 of 2026 in O.S.No.5 ol 2026 passed b the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial vlagistrate at Kukatpally, Medchal - Malkajgiri District.
- \
- -*--
3. Petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.5 of 2026 against the respondents for permanent injunction restraining the respondents and their agents, attomeys, relatives, friends, henchmen, anti- social elements, third parties and whosoever under them from visiting and/or interfering with the day to day activities of life of the petitioner by visiting his residential premises, office or any other place where the petitioner may reside for the time being except according to due process of law.
4. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that he obtained loan from respondent No.l and he has been paying EMIs regularly. Even then respondent No.l ls sending third parties to his house and interfering with his day to day activities. It is also disturbing his personal life. Therefore, he filed the aforesaid suit seeking injunction against the respondents
5. Along with the said suit, he has filed an application vide I.A.No.46 of 2026 under Order XXKX Rules I and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking temporary injunction .,) restraining the respondents from interfering with Ir s day to day activities. Viclt' otcler datctl 22.01.2026, tearned trial Clourt issued urgcrrtrroticetotherespondentsthrouglrCourtltrdregistered post on payment of process and postcd the rnatter on ()5'02'2026'
6. During the course of hearing, it is brought kr the notice ol this Court that despito selice of notice, tll 're was no representation on behalf of respondent No.l befo ' the learned trial court on 05.02.2026. Therealier, lcarned trirll I'ourt posted the said I.A. or.r 10.02.2026.
1. It is the specific contention of the petitione hercin that respondents are sending tlrird parties i.e., arrti-socia :lements and they are trying to interfere with the day to day at t vities of the petitioner and his flarnily members. He has also filet staternent of account, loan account statcment, staternent o[' tDFC bank, statement of SBI bank, etc. He has also lodgetl a cornplaint against them on 19.12.2025 and flled the acknot' ledgment ol -=r \
police complaint. The same wcre not considered by the learned trial Court.
8. As discussed sultra, for granting telnporary injunction, the petitioncr has to satisly the lcarned trial Courl with regard to tlte following threc aspccts i.e., l) prirna facie case, ii) balance of convenience and iii) irreparablc loss. Further, vide docket order, dated 22.01.2026., learned trial Court issued notice to the respondents ar-rd postcd to 05.02.2026. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to satisly thc lcarncd trial Courl with regard to the aforesaid three aspccts to grant ai ex porte order and it is for the learned tlial Courl to considcr tltc satne.
In the light of the sarnc, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing thc lcalned Senior CiviI Judge-cuur- Additional Chiel .ludicial Magistrate at Kukatpally, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, to disposc of I.A.No.46 of 2026 in O.S.No.5 of 2026, strictly in accordance with law, after considering the t.. ;,-i4 :.',;F- .' - i#F: ..F
pleadings and documcnts filed by the petitioner a ong with the said l.A, as expeditiously as possible. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, i1 arry, pending in tlre Civil Revision Petition shall stand closcd. -[h.'e shall be no order as to costs. SD/. P.CIt NAGABHUSHAMBA ASIS STANT REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// \ \ SECTION OFFICER
1. The Senior Civil Judge - cum -Additional Chief Judicie I Magistrate at Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.
2. MD Rajeev Jain, Bajaj Finance Limited, , No. 1, F2, Sir r Prakasam Nest, 22nd S B Sector Siva Sakthi NGR , Annan, Chennai Tar ilnadu-600109
3. MD Sandeep Bakhshi, lClCl Bank, lClCl Bank Tower, I'l -.ar Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara 390007, Gujarat
4. MD Ravindra Kumar Kundu, Cholamandalam Finance - rola Crest, C54-55 85 Super B-4, Thiru-Vi-Ka lndustrial Estate, Gurndy, Ch: rnai - 600032, Tamil Nadu
5. MD Shashidhar Jagdishan , HDFC Bank, Senapati Bapz t Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai - 400 013
One CC to SRl. P. VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY, Advocakr OPUCI Two CD Copies M-SL \ \
HIGH COURT DATED:06/02/2026
ORDER
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No'378 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION .:.-'' .. , '1-.. 'l\11_ a: i.' .rE 0 g ttB 't[tt ) a) I \ k:, o\ 1\rt"