IN THE COURT OF THE I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT,
AT SECUNDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 5 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT : SMT. B. PRIYANKA
I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
O.S. No. 452 of 2021
Between:
Mrs. Kalyani Mohan Shah, D/o Mrs. Kusum Lal Mohan, W/o Mr. Nikhil Shah, Aged about 50 Years, R/o Longcroft Road, Edgware, Middlesex HA866RR United Kingdom, Represented by her GPA holder Mr. Capt. B. M. Mandanna, S/o B. K. Madhappa, Aged about 71 Years, R/o Plot No.33, Ramsai Apartments, Indirapuri colony, Secunderabad.
... Plaintiffs
AND
1.M/s VR NRI Solutions Private Limited, C/o Snigdha, D/o Panchavati Shyam Sunder, R/o Flat No. 304, Panchavati Sowmya Sri Sai Srinivasa Apartments, Vasavi Enclave, Old Alwal, Secunderabad – 500010.
2.Panchavati Sowmya, Aged major, R/o Plot No.16, Lane Opp: Petrol Bunk, Old Safilguda, Hyderabad.
3.Bandi Venkateshwarlu, S/o B.Galaiah, Aged about 46 Years, Occ: Business, R/o 8-43/7/17, Street No.7, Ghatkesar Mandal, Rajashekar Colony, Balaji Hills, Boduppal, Uppal.
4.Srihari Babu Kancherla, S/o K.Radhakrishna Rao Aged about 53 Years, Occ: Business, R/o 6-3-855/10/A, Sampathji Apartments, Ameerpet, Near Niraj Public School, Hyderabad.
5.Shrisha Panchavatinaga, Aged Major, R/o 17-1-177/C, LIGH Colony, Old Santhosh Nagar, Hyderabad.
6.Vijay Kumar Puromshetty, Aged Major, R/o Plot No.150, Vasavi Enclave, Old Alwal, Secunderabad.
2 of page 18 // Fair copy // O.S. No. 452 of 2021
7.Kumar Veeramanchineni, S/o V. Lokeshwar Rao, Aged about 52 Years, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No.4-a, Flat No.S2, Sri Sai Meher Enclave, Eswaripuri Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad.
... Defendants
This suit is coming on this day before me in the presence of M/s Lakshmikumaran and Sidharan, the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs and M/s M. Srikanth, Advocate for the defendants No. 3, 4 and 7 and right to file written statement of defendants 1 and 6 are forfeited and the defendant no. 2 remained exparte and defendant no. 5 not pressed the suit and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1. This suit is filed by plaintiff against the defendants (i) To grant a decree of ejection and to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff by defendants,
(ii) direct the defendants to pay of Rs. 2,27,850/- being the arrears of six months rent from
July 2020 to December 2020 to the plaintiff, (iii) Direct the defendants to pay Rs.
1,51,900/- towards damages for the months of January and February 2021 for their illegal occupation in and over the suit schedule property, (iv) Further direct the defendants to pay
Rs. 75,950/- per month for their illegal occupation as trespass till the date of handing over the possession of the suit schedule property, (v) to award costs of the suit.
SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY
All that entire ground floor portion of the premises No. 79, Chikoti Gardens, Road
No. 2, Begumpet, Hyderabad – 500016, Telangana.
North : Remaining portion of house bearing No. 60, 61 & 62/1
South : Plot No. 27
East : Remaining portion of house bearing Sy. No. 60,61 & 62/1 and
West : 100’ Wide Road.
3 of page 18 // Fair copy // O.S. No. 452 of 2021
2.The averments of the plaint are as follows :
(i)The plaintiff contended that she is the only daughter and legal heirs of Kusum Lal
Mohan who is the original owner of Suit Schedule Property and Kusum Lal Mohan died on 23.07.2020 thus plaintiff has become the owner of Suit Schedule Property and further states that the ground floor of the Suit Schedule Property is fully furnished and was taken on rent by defendants for running a business of delivering flowers, cakes, fruits, consumer durables, home appliances, automobiles, apparels, travel tickets etc. either online and physical in the name and style of M/s VR NRI Solutions Private Limited and defendants 2 to 6 are the directors of defendant no. 1 and on 01.11.2019 defendants entered into an rental agreement dated 17.12.2019 with plaintiff’s mother i.e., Kusum Lal Mohan represented by Cap. B.M. Mandanna to the terms and conditions the rent and fixtures charges of the premises at fixed at Rs. 37,975/- per month for 1 year with an option to be renewed for further period at the sole discretion of mother of the plaintiff and on such terms and conditions that may agreed upon. Further it is mandatory on the part of defendants to deposit the monthly rent on or before 10th every month and to obtain receipt for the same and the tenancy commenced from 1st day of the month and last day of month as per the English calender, rental and fixture charges are inclusive of municipal and property tax and exclusive of electrical charges and water charges. Further it is agreed not to let out or sub-let and to carry out any repairs or alternation without prior permission of plaintiff’s mother.
(ii)The plaintiff further contended that since from the date of inception to the tenancy the above said premises as a tenant, defendants have failed to pay monthly rents regularly in time, inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff and her mother during her life 4 of page 18 // Fair copy // O.S. No. 452 of 2021 time. Defendants failed to adhere to the practice and procedure to term and conditions of the rental agreement in paying monthly rent from July 2020 to 31.12.2020 @ Rs. 35,975/- per month. Plaintiffs submits that during the said demand to pay the monthly rents for July, 2020 to October 2020 from Defendants through email address and personally Mr. Capital
B. M. Mandanna and defendant no. 2 is representing defendant no. 1 have expressed their inability to pay the monthly rents and further requested to extend the tenancy period from the last day of October 2020 to 31.12.2020 upon which the plaintiff herein has agreed for the same with a condition to pay all the arrears and to vacate the same before 1st day of
January 2021 but the defendants did not pay the entire monthly rents from July to
December 2020 @ Rs. 37,975/- per month, further defendants did not initiated any act to vacate the premise as agreed upon through their email correspondence with the plaintiff.
Later, defendants failed to give reply to the plaintiff demands to pay all the monthly due rents and vacate the premises which defendants have taken on rent. As there was no response and non compliance of payments of rents in addition to it plaintiff came to know through reliable sources that defendants are planing to vacate the rental premises without any notice to the plaintiff as no other alternative plaintiff have put a lock to the main entrance premises which defendants have taken on rent. And defendants came to know about the same defendants agreed to vacate the premises and promise to pay the arrears of rents and other charges and on receipt of the said notice defendant no. 2 abused the plaintiff and her agent with dire consequence and threatened plaintiff if they again ask them vacate the premises or demand money, all the defendants 1 to 6 started abusing plaintiff and intentionally picked up the quarrel with plaintiff.
5 of page 18 // Fair copy // O.S. No. 452 of 2021
(iii)The plaintiff further contended that defendants have violated the terms and conditions of tenancy agreement and did not pay the arrears of rent and thus plaintiff has issued termination notice dated 13.02.2021 to all the defendants known addresses informing that the tenancy has been terminated and demanded to vacate by delivery peaceful possession of the Suit Schedule Premises and also demanded for payments of monthly rents @ Rs. 37,975/- on monthly rents from July,2020 to 31.12.2020 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice failing which the plaintiff will be constrain to take appropriate legal action. Inspite of the legal notice dated 13.02.2021 defendants failed to vacate and handover the peaceful possession after receipt of the possession in the above said possession was illegally trespass by the defendants, as such, defendants are liable to pay damages @ Rs. 75,950/- per month for illegal possession. As no other alternative plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants.
3.Summons were issued to defendants no. 1 to 7 and inspite of receipt of summons, defendant no.2 called absent and failed to contest the matter. Hence, defendant no. 2 is set exparte on 30.09.2021. On 10.11.2021 the plaintiff filed memo stating that the suit not pressed against the defendant no. 5, as such this court not pressed the suit against the defendant no. 5. Further, even after giving ample opportunity, written statement are not filed by the counsel for defendants 1 and 6 , as such, this court has passed conditional order and forfeited the right to file written statement of defendants 1 and 6 on 18.08.2022.
4.Further the defendants 3, 4 and 7 filed written statement to contest the suit.
The defendants 3, 4 and 7 contended that they did not take the premises on rent 6 of page 18 // Fair copy // O.S. No. 452 of 2021 and they are not party to the rental agreement dated 17.12.2019, as such, they have not aware regarding the terms and conditions of the alleged rental agreement and also denied to pay the arrears of rent and further stated that they are not necessary and proper party to the said suit. As such, they are filed the petition under rule 10 of CPC to delete their names from the array of parties in the suit.
The present defendants submits that they have been unnecessarily arrayed defendants and further contended that seeking recovery of alleged amounts from defendant no. 1 which is the private limited company as it is an independent legal entity, which can be sued in its own name. Whereas, the other defendants are merely additional and nominated directors and the management were defendant no. 2. The defendants 3, 4 and 7 are totally strangers to the alleged suit transaction and even there is no personal liability of the defendants as defendant no.1 is separate legal entity and plaintiff can recover against the company, the company alone can be sued and the directors and ex-directors are not require to be brought on the record. The directors are can be treated as agents of the company and they can perform certain acts on behalf of the company. The entire cause of action and claim in the suit exists against only defendant no. 1, whereas, ex-directors and nominated directors can not be fastened with any individual liability. Therefore, the suit should be dismissed against defendants 3, 4, and 7.
Adding to it, plaintiff did not file the basic document of rental agreement to substantiate to his claim and did not even file any reply notice given by the defendants. And stated that the directors of the company are not responsible for contractual liability of the company. More specially, directors who are not responsible for day to day activities of the company and did not even gave any 7 of page 18 // Fair copy // O.S. No. 452 of 2021 personal guarantee to the plaintiff. The entire transaction between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 only and requested the court to dismiss the suit against defendants 3, 4 and 7.
5.Basing on the pleadings of both parties, this court has settled the following
Issues for trial:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get eject and to get deliver the possession of the suit schedule property as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,27,850,/- against
defendants being the arrears of six months rent from July 2020 to
December 2020 as prayed for?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled towards damages for the months of
January and February, 2021 for their illegal occupation in and over the
suit schedule property as prayed for?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rs. 75,950/- per month for
their illegal occupation as trespassing till the date of handing over the
possession of the suit schedule property as prayed for?
5. Whether all directors of defendant company are responsible for suit prayer?
6. To what relief?
6.During the course of enquiry, the GPA holder of plaintiff got examined as PW1 and got marked his documents as Exs.A1 to A12. Ex.A1 is the Office copy of the legal notice sent to the defendant. Ex.A2 is the Original acknowledge due card under which the legal notice is received by the defendant. Ex.A3 is the Original
General Power of Attorney. Ex.A4 is the Email communication from plaintiff to defendant no.1 company about the termination of agreement on 31-10-2020 dated 8 of page 18 // Fair copy // O.S. No. 452 of 2021 04-10-2020. Ex.A5 is the Email from defendant no.1 to plaintiff expressing its financial inability and requesting the plaintiff to provide support for some more time in not terminating the agreement dated 15-10-2020. Ex.A6 is the Email from defendant no. 1 seeking extension till 31-12-2020 dated 20-10-2020. Ex.A7 is the
Email from defendant No.1 acknowledging arrears of rent payable before they vacate the premises dated 03-11-2020. Ex.A8 is the 16-12-2020 till 10-01-2021
Emails exchanged between plaintiff and defendant no.1. Ex.A9 is the Reply to the legal notice by d3, d4 and 7(3 nos) dated 24-02-2024. Ex.A10 is the Reply to the legal notice by defendant no. 5. Ex.A11 is the Returned envelop cover of defendant no. 6. Ex.A12 is the Mutation proceeding and order passed by GHMC in favour of plaintiff dated 27-04-2022
(ii) Defendant no. 3 examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B6. Ex.B1 is the Resolution of appointment of B. Venkateshwarlu dated 7-05-2019. Ex.B2 is the
Resolution of appointment of Srihari Babu Kunchrala dated 7-05-2019. Ex.B3 is the Resolution of appointment of Kumar Veeramachineni dated 7-05-2019. Ex.B4 is the Resignation of Letter of Sriharibabu Kunchrala dated 01-02-2021. Ex.B5 is the For No. DIR 11. Ex.B6 is the Form No. DIR 12.
7.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
8.Perused the material on the record.
9 of page 18 // Fair copy // O.S. No. 452 of 2021
9.PW1 reiterated the averments of plaint in his affidavit filed in lieu of his examination in chief. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that reproduction of the facts set out in plaint over and again would be redundant.
(i)Cross examination of PW1, he admitted that he does not have any personal knowledge about the suit and he has filed rental agreement which he has entered with Shraddha Sharma as the one of the director and the rental agreement expired on 30.10.2020 and he is not aware regarding the arbitration clause in the rental agreement and also admitted that the complete suit is based on the rental agreement and also admitted that the company is the main defendant i.e., defendants 1 and 2 and he do not have any personal acquaintance with
Defendants 3, 4 and 7 and also stated that he was not interested to renew the rental agreement after so many request they agreed to extent the time as renewal and on behalf of the Kusum Lal Mohan, as GPA holder PW1 entered into an agreement with the company and also admitted that Kusum Lal Mohan did not execute any GPA in his favour as she was bed ridden and defendants replied for the email of the Kalyan Mohan Das who is daughter and original owner, who is plaintiff in this present case. From her mail I.D baba mandanna@yahoo.com. Ex.A8 is showing that defendant no. 1 requested the plaintiff for extension of time for lease period and the entire email communication is about lease are made between plaintiff and defendant no. 1. Defendants 2 to 7 are all directors and also admitted that Ex.A7/email, Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 are sent by plaintiff to defendant no. 6 and they were two reply notices which are marked as Ex.A13 and
Ex.A14 and he is not aware that Defendants 2 and 7 are nominated person and 10 of page 18 // Fair copy // O.S. No. 452 of 2021 they are not concerned and liable to pay the arrears of rent. Further defendant no.
4 resign in such regard he is not responsible to pay the rents and also admitted that only company signed on the rental agreement but all the directors did not signed and he did not remember who are signed on the rental agreement.
10. Defendant no. 3 himself got examined as DW1 and in his examination-in- chief reiterated the contents of his written statement. DW1 in his cross examination stated that he does not know for which purpose plaintiff has filed this suit. He does not know whether defendant no. 1 occupied Suit Schedule Premises as tenant doing business. In May 2019 he became as additional director of VRNRI Solutions
Private Limited and he is not aware regarding the terms and conditions before accepting the possession of additional directors VRNRI solutions Private Limited and he is not aware whether any persona is nominated to the director post as per
Ex.B1 he is not nominated director neither Defendants 2 and 3 are connected to him. He did not invest in VRNRI Company and does not even know whether
VRNRI company is working or not and does not even know whether VRNRI company is doing business apart from Begumpet, Hyderabad. Defendant No. 4 brought him to the company as additional director.
11.The case of the plaintiff is that she is the only legal heir of Kusum Lal Mohan who was the original owner and on 23.07.2020 Kusum Lal Mohan was expired, thus plaintiff became the owner of the Suit Schedule Property and further stated that the ground floor is fully furnished and defendants have taken the premises on rent in order to run the business in the name of M/s VR NRI Solutions Private Limited and defendant no. 1 is the 11 of page 18 // Fair copy // O.S. No. 452 of 2021 company, while defendants 2 to 7 are the directors of defendant no. 1 and they have entered into a rental agreement on 17.12.2019 and fixed the charges of rent @ Rs.
37,975/- per month. The plaintiff’s mother i.e. Kusum Lal Mohan represented by her AGP i.e., Mr. Capt. B. M. Mandanna and on every month of 10th defendants should deposit the rent and since the date of inception of the tenancy defendants have failed to pay the monthly rents regularly. Inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff and during the lifetime of her mother and defendant no. 2 representing defendant no. 1 have expressed inability to pay the monthly rent and requested to extend the lease period from October 2020 to 31.12.2020. Upon which plaintiff has agreed for the same with a condition to clear all the arrears of monthly rent and asked the defendants to vacate the premises on or
before 01.01.2021.
12.Per contra, defendants contended that they did not take the premise on the rent and they are not parties to the alleged rented dated 17.12.2019 and they are no way responsible for the arrears of rent and the plaintiff should only proceed against defendant no.1 and not against the directors of the company and contended that they did not file the rental agreement to substantiate her claim.
13.Plaintiff stated that she is the only legal heir of her deceased mother Kusum lal
Mohan and she filed Ex.A12 which is the mutation proceeding passed by GHMC in Favour of plaintiff with this which makes this court clear that plaintiff is the owner of the Suit
Schedule Property and while coming to the jural relationship plaintiff failed to produce the rental agreement which was entered by her deceased mother and defendant no. 1 but on perusal of Ex.A4 to Ex.A8 where Ex.A4 is the email communication between the plaintiff 12 of page 18 // Fair copy // O.S. No. 452 of 2021 and defendant no. 1 company about termination of the agreement on 31.10.2020 and
Ex.A5 is the email from defendant no. 1 to plaintiff expressing its financial inability and requesting the plaintiff to provide some more time by not terminating the agreement. Ex.A6 is the email from defendant no. 1 seeking extension till 31.12.2020 and Ex.A17 is the email from defendant no. 1 acknowledging the arrears of rent payable before they vacate the premises and Ex.A8 is the email exchanged between plaintiff and defendant no. 1 which make this court so clear the there is jural relationship between plaintiff who is representing through his AGP Mr. Capt. B. M. Mandanna as in Ex.A3 and through the email communications which make this court so clear that defendant no. 1 has taken the ground floor premises of the Suit Schedule Property on rent as stated by the plaintiff and also defendant no.1 stated his financial inability and requested for extension of time in agreement and got the extension till 31.12.2020 by promising to pay the arrears of rent
before vacating the premises ad there is a clear admissions by the defendant in the emails
that they are due with regard to the arrears of rent.
14.Meanwhile, defendants 3, 4 and 7 contested the suit by filing the written statement, cross examining the PW1 and filed the evidence on their behalf and marked documents
Ex.B1 to B6. Later to the astonishment plaintiff filed a memo on 03.02.2025 stating that he wants to not pressed the suit against defendants 3, 4,7 and expressing no objection with respect to eviction of Suit Schedule property along with the memo which defendants have filed on 03.02.2025 and they have endorsed on the plaint that they are not pressing the suit against defendants 3, 4 and 7 and the defendants also filed a memo that if the plaintiff waives the liability of arrears in the present against defendants 3, 4 and 7 as they are not in possession and the thus the suit is not pressed against defendants 3, 4 and 7 and the 13 of page 18 // Fair copy // O.S. No. 452 of 2021 suit is existing against defendants 1, 2 and 6 wherein, defendant no.2 was set exparte on 30.09.2021 and further, on 18.08.2022 the right to file written statement of defendants 1 and 6 is forfeited.
15. ANSWER TO ISSUE No. 1 : - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get eject
and to get deliver the possession of the suit schedule property as prayed
for?
As plaintiff has proved that she is the only legal heir of her mother and presently she is the owner of Suit Schedule Property and she has proved before this court that her mother has let out her ground floor property to defendant no.1 and plaintiff was clear regarding the termination of the agreement and at the request of defendant no. 1 and she has extended time for termination till 31.12.2020. even than defendant no. 1 did not vacate the premises as per her version and did not even come forward before this court to disprove the version of the plaintiff. As such, this court has drawn adverse inference as defendant no. 1 did not approach before this court in order to disprove that he did not take the premises on rent as such, this court believe the version of the plaintiff that she is the owner of the Suit Schedule Property and thus, she is entitle for the eviction of the ground floor premises and defendant no. 1 directed to vacate and handover the vacant possession to the plaintiff within two months. Accordingly, Issue No1 is answer in favour of plaintiff.
14 of page 18 // Fair copy // O.S. No. 452 of 2021
16.ANSWER TO ISSUE No. 2: - Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of
Rs. 2,27,850,/- against defendants being the arrears of six months rent from
July 2020 to December 2020 as prayed for?
Though the email communications showing that defendant no. 1 has taken the ground floor premises of the Suit Schedule Property and defendant no.1 stated his financial inability and requested for extension of time by promising to pay the arrears of rent before vacating the premises but the plaintiff did not shown any documentary evidence to show that the defendants are still due for arrears of 6 months rent from July 2020 to December 2020 to the plaintiff and neither the defendant admitted the same but simply plaintiff stated that defendant No. 1 are due for the arrears of rent @ Rs.37,975/- but she did not file the rental agreement which was entered between the mother of plaintiff and defendant no. 1. Thus, this court hold that the plaintiff is not entitled for arrears of rents as there is no any documentary evidence to establish the same. Accordingly, the issue is answered.
17. ANSWER TO ISSUEs No. 3 and 4: - (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled
towards damages for the months of January and February, 2021 for their
illegal occupation in and over the suit schedule property as prayed for? (iv)
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of Rs. 75,950/- per month for their
illegal occupation as trespassing till the date of handing over the possession
of the suit schedule property as prayed for?
On the perusal of the record, which reveals that plaintiff has locked the Suit
Schedule Property in the year 2021 without giving the access to the defendant no.
1 which can be seen in Ex.A1 and on the conversation between the plaintiff and 15 of page 18 // Fair copy // O.S. No. 452 of 2021 defendant no. 1 though mails. Accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled for the damages for the months of January and February 2021 as she has taken a law in to her hands and locked the premises. Further the plaintiff is claiming Rs. 75,950/- per month for their illegal occupation as trespassing till the date of handing over the possession of the suit schedule property but the plaintiff failed to explain how she has calculated Rs. 75,950/- per month over the suit schedule property. She has failed to adduce any evidence to show that she is entitled for Rs. 75,950/- per month for their illegal occupation as trespassing till the date of handing over the possession of the suit schedule property. In these circumstances, in the absence of any substantial evidence, this court is not inclined to grant any claim for their illegal occupation through trespassing of the suit schedule property at this stage.
Hence, Issues no. 3 and 4 are answered accordingly.
18. ANSWER TO ISSUE No. 5: - Whether all directors of defendant company are responsible for suit prayer?
The Defendant no. 1 is the tenant of plaintiff and other defendants are the directors of the company. As defendant no. 1 is the company who is a legal person where as other defendants 2 to 7 are the directors. Wherein the plaintiff himself has not pressed the suit against Defendants 3, 4, 5 and 7 by filing a memo that they having no objection with respect to eviction of the suit schedule property and the defendants 3, 4, 5 and 7 have contested tooth and nail in this case stating that defendant no. 1 is the legal person where plaintiff can proceed against only defendant no. 1 as the alleged agreement was entered between defendant no. 1 and mother of plaintiff. PW1 in his cross examination admitted that no directors 16 of page 18 // Fair copy // O.S. No. 452 of 2021 have affixed their signatures in the rental agreement when PW1 himself also stated that he do not remember who have affixed the signature on behalf of defendant no.
1 in the rental agreement and they have not pressed the suit against few directors and intended to contest the suit only on two directors but plaintiff failed to establish the role played by them in defendant no. 1 company, this court cannot simply decree the suit against the other directors who did not contest the suit remained exparte while plaintiff has not pressed the suit on the directors who contest the suit at the argument stage. As such, in the interest of justice this court is of the opinion that plaintiff failed to explain the liability and role played by the directors i.e., defendants 2 and 6 to sue them on behalf of defendant no. 1. Hence, the issue no.
5 is answered accordingly.
In the result, the suit is partly decreed without costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant no. 1, directing the defendant No. 1 to vacate the suit schedule property within two months from the date of judgment.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court,
on this the 5 th day of August, 2025.
I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFFS : FOR DEFENDANTS:
PW1: Captain B.M. Mandannaa DW1 : Bandi Venkateshwarlu 17 of page 18 // Fair copy // O.S. No. 452 of 2021
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS :
Ex.A1 : Office copy of the legal notice sent to the defendant.
Ex.A2 : Original acknowledge due card under which the legal notice is received by the defendant.
Ex.A3 : Original General Power of Attorney.
Ex.A4 : Email communication from plaintiff to defendant no.1 company about the termination of agreement on 31-10-2020 dated 04-10-2020.
Ex.A5 : Email from defendant no.1 to plaintiff expressing its financial inability and requesting the plaintiff to provide support for some more time in not terminating the agreement dated 15-10-2020.
Ex.A6 : Email from defendant no. 1 seeking extension till 31-12-2020 dated 20-10- 2020.
Ex.A7 : Email from defendant No.1 acknowledging arrears of rent payable before they vacate the premises dated 03-11-2020.
Ex.A8 : 16-12-2020 till 10-01-2021 Emails exchanged between plaintiff and defendant no.1.
Ex.A9 : Reply to the legal notice by d3, d4 and 7(3 nos) dated 24-02-2024.
Ex.A10 : Reply to the legal notice by defendant No. 5.
Ex.A11 : Returned envelop cover of defendant No. 6 .
Ex.A12: Mutation proceeding and order passed by GHMC in favour of plaintiff
dated 27-04-2022.
18 of page 18 // Fair copy // O.S. No. 452 of 2021
FOR THE DEFENDANTS :-
Ex.B1 : Resolution of appointment of B. Venkateshwarlu dated 7-05-2019.
Ex.B2 : Resolution of appointment of Srihari Babu Kunchrala dated 7-05-2019.
Ex.B3 : Resolution of appointment of Kumar Veeramachineni dated 7-05-2019.
Ex.B4 : Resignation of Letter of Sriharibabu Kunchrala dated 01-02-2021.
Ex.B5 :For No. DIR 11.
Ex.B6 : Form No. DIR 12.
I JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.