M.R.Sunitha
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda
Hanumakonda, PDJ Court Complex · Hanumakonda · Telangana
Based on 5 recent ordersM.R.Sunitha, Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda, is posted at Hanumakonda, PDJ Court Complex, Hanumakonda, Telangana, India. 5 court orders on record since 2026. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles EP, AS cases.
Featured Judgments
1 of 12 A.S No. 41/2023
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: HANUMAKONDA.
Wednesday, the 6th day of May, 2026
Present: Smt. M.R. Sunitha,
Principal District Judge,
Hanumakonda.
A.S.No. 41 of 2023
(Old A.S. No. 91 of 2019) Between:
Akula Ravinder, S/o. Sambaiah, Age: 51 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 2-6-107, Nakkalagutta, Hanumakonda.
...Appellant/ Plaintiff
And
1. Gankidi Damodar Reddy, S/o. Late Chandra Reddy, Age: 62 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o: Dharmasagar Village & Mandal, Hanumakonda District.
2. Kola Rajeshwar Rao, S/o. Peeraiah, Age: 56 years, R/o: H.No. 1-7- 205, Revenue Colony, Subedari, Hanumakonda.
...Respondents/Defendants
On appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 10.04.2023 passed in
O.S.No. 94 of 2012 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Hanumakonda
O.S No. 94 OF 2012
Between:
Akula Ravinder, S/o. Sambaiah, Age: 51 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 2-6-107, Nakkalagutta, Hanumakonda.
... Plaintiff
And
1. Gankidi Damodar Reddy, S/o. Late Chandra Reddy, Age: 62 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o: Dharmasagar Village & Mandal, Hanumakonda District.
2. Kola Rajeshwar Rao, S/o. Peeraiah, Age: 56 years, R/o:H.No. 1-7- 205, Revenue Colony, Subedari, Hanumakonda.
...Defendants
This appeal came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. V. Vidyadhar Raj, counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and of Sri Lekkala Jalandhar Reddy, counsel for respondent/defendant No.1 and respondent/defendant No.2 having been chosen to remain ex parte; upon 2 of 12 A.S No. 41/2023 perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day this Court made the following:- – J U D G M E N T –
This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 94 of 2012 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2023 on the file of
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda. The plaintiff filed the suit for
permanent injunction and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment in O.S.No. 94/2012 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Hanumakonda the plaintiff in the suit filed this appeal.
2. The brief facts which are lead to file the appeal are as follows:-
For brevity the ranking of the parties are referred according to their ranking in the suit.
3(i). The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0-10 guntas in Sy.No.1918/C situated at Madikonda
Village, hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule property. According to him, he purchased the said property from its owner, Adepu Sampath, under registered sale deed bearing Document No.7495 of 2004 dated 07.09.2004 for valid sale consideration and delivered the possession, and since the date of purchase he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment thereof.
3(ii). Further, it is case of the plaintiff that the original owner of the suit property, namely Burra Venkataiah, had purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 31.03.1981 and subsequently alienated the same in favour of Ramulu Peddanna under registered sale deed dated 26.12.1981, who in turn sold the property to the plaintiff through a 3 of 12 A.S No. 41/2023 registered sale deed. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the title to the suit schedule property has validly devolved upon him through a continuous chain of registered conveyances.
3(iii). Further, the plaintiff contends that he subsequently purchased an adjacent extent of Ac.0-15 guntas in the same survey number and that his name was mutated in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor in respect of the entire extent of Ac.0-25 guntas, including the suit schedule property. It is stated that pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in his favour and the revenue authorities assigned Sy.No.1918/C in his name. Later, the plaintiff sold Ac.0-15 guntas out of the said extent in favour of one N. Rangaiah and has remained in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the remaining Ac.0-10 guntas constituting the suit schedule property.
3(iv). Further, the plaintiff averred that there has been strained relationship between himself and defendant No.1 for a long period. Owing to such strained relations, defendant No.1 allegedly attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession over land in Sy.No.1914 of Madikonda
Village, which constrained him to institute Original Suit No. 993 of 2010 for perpetual injunction, and the said suit is pending on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda.
3(v). Further, it is alleged that defendant No.2, who owns land situated to the southern side of the suit schedule property and is a close associate of defendant No.1, was instigated by defendant No.1 to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession over the suit schedule property with an intention to grab the same. According to the plaintiff, on 15.01.2012 and again on 4 of 12 A.S No. 41/2023 05.02.2012, the defendants, along with anti-social elements, trespassed into the suit schedule property and attempted to dispossess him. Though the plaintiff and his family members resisted the said acts, the defendants allegedly left the place after extending threats of dire consequences.
Hence, the present suit filed seeking the relief of perpetual injunction.
4(i). The defendants Nos.1 and 2 filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. Defendants specific contention is that no suit schedule property exists within the boundaries described by the plaintiff and that, in fact, there is a cart way ad measuring 20 feet in width situated towards the eastern side of the petrol pump, running from North to South and connecting Dharmasagar to Madikonda Road. According to the defendants, the said cart way has been in existence for more than twenty years and is being used by the farmers for carrying on agricultural operations.
4(ii). Further, defendants contended that the plaintiff, in collusion with his alleged vendor, namely Sampath, has brought into existence the registered sale deeds with an ulterior intention to grab the said cart way.
The defendants assert that the plaintiff has no land whatsoever in the said survey number and, by taking advantage of certain entries in the pahanies, is attempting to encroach upon and occupy the cart way, which is being beneficially used by the defendants as well as other agriculturists of Madikonda and Dharmasagar villages. The defendants further contended that the plaintiff by suppressing the real facts approached the court with false claim and prayed the court for dismissed the suit.
5 of 12 A.S No. 41/2023 5. Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the following issues were settled for trial.
i).Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property?
ii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for?
ii).To what relief?
6.In proof of the case of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and
Exs. A-1 to A-4 were marked. In proof of the case of the defendant, D.W.1 and
D.W.2 were examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court has dismissed the suit.
7. Aggrieved by the judgment the plaintiff in the trial court preferred this appeal. The counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court without considering the documents filed by the plaintiff erroneously dismissed the suit. The documents filed by the plaintiff clearly establishes his possession over the suit schedule property as on date of filing of the suit. The trial court erroneously relied on the documents filed by the defendants and dismissed the suit. Therefore, prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the Judgment and decree of the trial court.
8. Whereas the counsel for the respondents contended that the plaintiff has no title and the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence on record and there is no need to interfere with the Judgment of the trial court.
9. The following points were settled for determination is:-
(i). Whether the appellant is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed ?
(ii). Whether is there any interference is required in the Judgment of trial Court?
6 of 12 A.S No. 41/2023 10.POINT No.(i)- The contention of the both parties are referred supra.
Hence, there is no need to reiterate the same.
11. The main contention of the plaintiff is that he has purchased the suit schedule property from its true owner and he is in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. Whereas the defendants contended that there is no land to the plaintiff in the said survey number, as on the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff is trying to occupy the cartway which is useful to the defendants and other agriculturist of Madikonda and Dharmasagar villages by taking advantage of the entries in the pahanies and the plaintiff wanted to grabbed the suit schedule property and filed the suit.
12. In proof of his case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, and his evidence is in consonance with his pleadings. During cross-examination, he admitted that he had sold Ac.0-20 guntas of land to one Rangaiah under a registered sale deed, and that O.S. No.993 of 2020 filed by him against defendant No.1 herein was dismissed, and the appeal preferred there against was also dismissed. He further admitted that defendant
No.2 does not own any land surrounding his land, and that defendant No.1 owns land in another survey number beyond Surya Kuteer Venture. He also admitted that Rangaiah had alienated the land in favour of a third party, though he stated that he does not know the name of the purchaser.
He denied the suggestion that he has no land on the spot based on the revenue records and that the land owned by him had already been sold to
Rangaiah.
13. The plaintiff has filed Ex.A-1, being the registered sale deed bearing
Document No.14764 dated 26.12.1981, which evidences the sale 7 of 12 A.S No. 41/2023 transaction between Ramula Peddanna and Adepu Sampath in respect of
Ac.0-10 guntas in Sy.No.1918. Ex.A-2 is the registered sale deed bearing
Document No.7495 of 2004 dated 07.09.2004 executed by Adepu
Sampath in favour of the plaintiff, Akula Ravinder, conveying Ac.0-10 guntas in Sy.No.1918. The boundaries mentioned therein are agricultural land of the vendee on the East and South, Dharmasagar Village boundary and agricultural land of A. Ramulu on one side, and pathway on the North.
Ex.A-3 is the registered sale deed bearing Document No.2486 of 1981.
Ex.A-4 is the pahani for the years 2009–2010 standing in the name of the plaintiff, showing him as pattadar and possessor of Ac.0-25 guntas in
Sy.No.1918/C.
14.On scrutiny of the documents filed by both parties, it is evident that the plaintiff claims right and possession over the suit property based on the registered sale deed under Ex.A-2, bearing Document No.7495 of 2004 dated 07.09.2004. The plaintiff has also filed pahanies for the years 2009 and 2010 showing his name as pattadar and possessor to an extent of Ac.0-25 guntas. Though the plaintiff pleaded that he had sold Ac.0-15 guntas to N. Rangaiah and retained possession of Ac.0-10 guntas constituting the suit property, he has not filed any supporting document to establish the said alienation or to substantiate the remaining extent claimed by him.
15. On the other hand, the defendants have filed Ex.B-1 to show that the plaintiff sold an extent of Ac.0-21 guntas of land to N. Rangaiah under registered sale deed bearing document No. 2522 of 2011 dated 29.01.2011. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not disputed the said document.
8 of 12 A.S No. 41/2023
There is also no suggestion from his side that he had not conveyed the entire extent covered thereunder to the said N. Rangaiah.
16. In proof of the plaintiff’s case, Sri B. Ramesh was examined as
P.W.2. He is a third party to the suit proceedings and corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 by stating that he knows both the parties to the suit.
During cross-examination, it was elicited that he does not own any agricultural land surrounding the suit property and that he used to work in the suit property under the instructions of the plaintiff. He further admitted that he is employed as a Goods Driver by the plaintiff. He denied knowledge of N. Komuramma and R. Shekar owning lands surrounding the suit property. He also denied the suggestion that there exists a cart way on the eastern side of Ramulu’s petrol bunk. However, he stated that since the land is kept vacant, people use it as a pathway to reach
Suryakuteer for ingress and egress. He further denied the suggestion that the plaintiff had alienated the entire extent of land to Rangaiah and that no land remained with the plaintiff on the spot.
17. In proof of the case of the defendants. The defendant No.1 examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B-1 and B-2 in support of the defence set up by him. Ex.B-1 is the registered sale deed bearing document No.2522 of 2011 executed by Akula Ravinder in favour of N. Rangaiah conveying an extent of Ac.0-21 guntas in Sy.No.1918. The recitals of the said document disclose that the vendor had purchased Ac.0-15 guntas in Sy.No.1918 from
A. Vimala Devi, wife of Sadanandam, under document No.7494 of 2004, and
Ac.0-10 guntas in the same survey number from Adepu Sampath, son of 9 of 12 A.S No. 41/2023
Tukaram, under document No.7495 of 2004, thus claiming title over the aggregate extent conveyed thereunder.
18. The recitals further disclose that the first vendor transferred Ac.0-15 guntas, whereas the second vendor transferred only Ac.0-06 guntas, totaling
Ac.0-21 guntas conveyed in favour of the plaintiff out of the total extent of
Ac.0-25 guntas claimed by him. The boundaries for the said extent of Ac.0-21 guntas are shown as agricultural land of others to the East, vendors’ land to the West, way on the North, and agricultural land of S. Archid to the South.
Ex.B-2 is the Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney executed by
N. Rangaiah in favour of Ch. Ramesh, G. Karunakar, and K. Ravinder in respect of the very same extent of Ac.0-21 guntas in Sy.No.1918/C1 with same boundaries.
19. During cross-examination, it was elicited that D.W.1 owns land ad- measuring Ac.2-30 guntas in Sy.No.1914, Ac.0-08 guntas in Sy.No.1913, and
Ac.0-29 guntas in Sy.No.1912 situated at Madikonda Shivar, and that all the said lands stand in his name and are under his cultivation. He further admitted that litigation has been pending between him and the plaintiff for the past 10 years, one of such suits having already been disposed of. He stated that the present suit pertains to Ac.0-10 guntas of land allegedly already sold away by the plaintiff and that the remaining Ac.0-04 guntas is being used as pathway to his land. He admitted that he has not filed any document to establish that Ac.0-04 guntas in Sy.No.1918/C constitutes a pathway, and stated that his deposition in that regard is based only on his personal experience of 40 years of cultivation and personal observation.
While denying the suggestion that Ac.0-04 guntas in Sy.No.1918/C is not 10 of 12 A.S No. 41/2023 covered by any pathway, he admitted that except pleading existence of a cartway, he has not specifically pleaded or claimed any independent right in
Sy.No.1918/C, nor has he filed any document to establish such right. He further admitted that he verified Exs.A-1 to A-3 filed by the plaintiff and that they are genuine documents.
20. D.W.2 is a third party acquainted with both the plaintiff and the defendants, and his chief-examination is on the same lines as that of
D.W.1. In cross-examination, he stated that he is a native of Dharmasagar and owns lands in Sy.Nos.1913 and 1914; however, he has not filed any documents to substantiate the same. He further admitted that he did not verify the registered sale deed of the year 2011 or the GPA-cum-sale document, and that he does not know the extent of land possessed by the plaintiff or the extent sold by him. Though he claimed to possess documents showing the existence of the cart-way, no such documents were produced before the Court. He denied the suggestion that the suit property is agricultural land and not a cart-way, and that a false complaint was lodged against the plaintiff for mutation of the suit land by alleging it to be a cart track.
21. Though the plaintiff claims ownership/possession over Ac.0-25 guntas of land, Exs.B-1 and B-2 indicate that the plaintiff had alienated the extent covered there under registered documents, namely, the certified copy of sale deed bearing Document No.2522 of 2011 dated 29.01.2011 and the certified copy of Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA bearing document No.8206 of 2013 dated 04.09.2013. The plaintiff, while suppressing the material fact of alienation of the subject property/extent 11 of 12 A.S No. 41/2023 in the year 2011, instituted the present suit in the year 2012 by relying upon pahanies for the years 2009 and 2010 to establish possession.
22. Though, the present suit is one for injunction simplicitor and this
Court is not called upon to adjudicate title conclusively, the relief of injunction can be granted only if the plaintiff establishes lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit. In the present case, the plaintiff has utterly failed to discharge his burden of proving possession over the suit property by producing cogent evidence.
On the other side, the defendants have succeeded in probabilising / disproving the plaintiff’s case. Accordingly, this Court holds that the plaintiff has failed to establish possession over the suit property as on the date of institution of the suit.
23.Therefore, as the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in the correct perspective and rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial Court. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is liable to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
Consequently, the plaintiff/appellant is not entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered against the appellant.
24. POINT No.(ii):- The trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record. Hence, there is no need to interfere in the judgment of the trial court.
12 of 12 A.S No. 41/2023
25. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of May, 2026).
Sd/-
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
HANUMAKONDA
:: Appendix of Evidence :: -Nil-
Sd/-
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
HANUMAKONDA
1 of 5 E.P.No. 158 of 2025
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT HANUMAKONDA
Wednesday, the 6th day of May, 2026
Present: Smt. M.R. Sunitha,
Principal District Judge,
Hanumakonda.
E.P.No. 158 of 2025
in ARB No. 312 of 2023 BETWEEN:
Shriram Finance Limited (Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Amalgamated with Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, subsequently Shriram Transport Company Limited, Name changed as Shriram Finance Limited, by its incorporation certificate dated 13.11.2022) a corporated body registered and incorporated as a company under the Indian Companies Act 1956, is doing Non- Banking financial activities, having its registered office, Sri Towers Plot No. 14-A, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai- 600032 and having its Administrative Office at 6th Floor (level-2), Building No. Q2, Aurum Q parc, Gen 4/1 TTC, Thane Belapur Road, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai-400710 represented by its G.P.A. holder i.e. Sri P. Raju, S/o. Yellaiah, Age: 41 years, Occ: Divisional Recovery Manager, Miryalaguda D.O. …Decree-Holder
AND
1. Polepaka Srilatha, S/o Polepaka Sudhakar, Age: 44 years, R/o. H.No. 25-4-168, Vishnupuri, Telugu Baptish Church, Kazipet, Hanumakonda District.
2. Mahesh Karkal, S/o. Komuraiah, R/o: H.No. 1-171, Geesukonda, Warangal District. … Judgment-Debtors
This Execution Petition came before me on 24.04.2026 in the presence of Sri N. Surender, advocate for the Decree-Holder and Judgment-Debtor No.1 having chosen to remain ex parte, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day this Court made the following:-
- O R D E R -
The Decree Holder(DHr) is the petitioner in Arbitration Case No. 312 of 2023 and arbitrator passed award in favour of the petitioner directing 2 of 5 E.P.No. 158 of 2025 the respondents in the arbitration to pay sum of Rs.84,342/- with future interest at 12% P.A on Rs.60,325/- from the date of claim petition till realization and also pay costs of Rs. 2,730/-. The decree holder filed the
E.P for recovery of Rs. 99,867/-. The DHR filed petition for attachment and sale of immovable properties of Judgment-Debtor No.1 (for short JDR
No.1).
2.Notice was sent to the judgment debtor No.1 and there was sufficient service. The Judgments Debtor No.1 did not attend the court and on 06.02.2026 the Judgment Debtor No.1 was set ex parte.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the decree holder. Perused the record.
4. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the award dated 24.07.2024, in Arbitration Case No.312 of 2023 rendered by the sole arbitrator appointed by the decree holder can be executed to enforce it under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
POINT 5(a). The learned counsel for the decree holder has contended that the sole arbitrator has considered all the facts and upon consideration of all the relevant facts and following the procedure established under and laid down in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the award was passed.
5(b). It is contended that the JDRs No.1 has received the notice and did not turn up before the arbitrator. Therefore, the learned arbitrator passed an award, which became final as the respondent/Judgment Debtor No.1 did not challenge it.
5(c). It is further contended that JDR No.1 was set exparte and therefore the movable properties mentioned in the schedules annexed with the petition shall be attached for realization of the execution petition debtor.
3 of 5 E.P.No. 158 of 2025 6. The award was passed by the sole arbitrator. The court has to verify one important aspect while executing the arbitration award i.e., whether the award is executable. It is true that the court would not go behind the award. However, there are certain inexecutable awards and decrees and the court has to decide whether a particular award can be executed. The law of arbitration is based on the principles of party autonomy, equality of the parties and freedom of parties to choose arbitrator.
7. In a Five-Judge Constituent Bench of the Honorable Supreme Court in
Central Organisation for Railway Electrification Vs. M/s ECI SPIC
SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company, (2025) 4 SCC 641( CORE ), it wasobserved that the principle of equal treatment of parties applies at all the stages of arbitration proceedings including the stage of appointment of arbitrators. It was also held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 lays down the procedural framework to regulate the composition of arbitration tribunals and the conduct of arbitration proceedings and it is only when the composition accepted to law then only the arbitration tribunals act objectively and exercise a discretion in a judicious manner without caprice and in accordance with the principles of law and rules of natural justice. The court therefore, has to find out whether the appointment of the Arbitrator in this case is valid and based on it, it is also to be decided whether the award is executable. Before that the court has to find out whether in this case the court can go behind the award and can an objection regarding the validity of the appointment of the arbitrator can be taken during execution proceedings.
4 of 5 E.P.No. 158 of 2025 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad in M/s.
Sundaram Finance Limited v. Medikonda Ramesh and 2 othersin CRP
No. 3856 of 2026, dated 27.02.2026:- Wherein it is held that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court while passing the order in the case of Central
Organization, 2025 (4) SCC 641 has made the judgment applicable prospectively i.e., subsequent to the date of pronouncement of judgment 08.11.2024. Relevant text is extracted below:
170.7: The law laid down in the present reference will apply prospectively to arbitrator appointments to be made after the date of judgment. This direction applies to three member tribunals.
9. In the instance case, the award was passed by the Arbitrator on 24.07.2024, which is much prior to the judgment in the case of Central
Organization for Railway Electrification Vs. M/s ECI SPIC SMO
MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company, (2025) 4 SCC 641( CORE )
of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
10. The learned Arbitrator has passed award on 24.07.2024, directing the respondents/JDRs No.1 and 2 to pay sum of Rs. 84,342/- with future interest at 12% P.A on Rs.60,325/- from the date of claim petition till realization and also pay costs of Rs. 2,730/-.
11. The petitioner contended that JDR No.1 having sufficient means failed to satisfy the award passed by the arbitrator and sought for attachment and sale of movable properties.
12. Considering the award passed by the arbitrator and contention of
D.Hr that JDR. No.1 is having sufficient means to satisfy the decree and 5 of 5 E.P.No. 158 of 2025 willfully he is evading to satisfy the award passed by the arbitrator.
Hence, issue attachment of movable properties of JDR. No.1 under Order 21, Rule 43, C.P.C.
13. In the result, the execution petition is allowed. Issue warrant for attachment of movable property of J.DR. No.1 under Order 21, Rule 43,
C.P.C on payment of process. Call on 30.06.2026.
(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of May, 2026).
Sd/-
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
HANUMAKONDA.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-NIL-
Sd/-
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
HANUMAKONDA.
1 of 5 E.P.No. 158 of 2025
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT HANUMAKONDA
Wednesday, the 6th day of May, 2026
Present: Smt. M.R. Sunitha,
Principal District Judge,
Hanumakonda.
E.P.No. 158 of 2025
in ARB No. 312 of 2023 BETWEEN:
Shriram Finance Limited (Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Amalgamated with Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, subsequently Shriram Transport Company Limited, Name changed as Shriram Finance Limited, by its incorporation certificate dated 13.11.2022) a corporated body registered and incorporated as a company under the Indian Companies Act 1956, is doing Non- Banking financial activities, having its registered office, Sri Towers Plot No. 14-A, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai- 600032 and having its Administrative Office at 6th Floor (level-2), Building No. Q2, Aurum Q parc, Gen 4/1 TTC, Thane Belapur Road, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai-400710 represented by its G.P.A. holder i.e. Sri P. Raju, S/o. Yellaiah, Age: 41 years, Occ: Divisional Recovery Manager, Miryalaguda D.O. …Decree-Holder
AND
1. Polepaka Srilatha, S/o Polepaka Sudhakar, Age: 44 years, R/o. H.No. 25-4-168, Vishnupuri, Telugu Baptish Church, Kazipet, Hanumakonda District.
2. Mahesh Karkal, S/o. Komuraiah, R/o: H.No. 1-171, Geesukonda, Warangal District. … Judgment-Debtors
This Execution Petition came before me on 24.04.2026 in the presence of Sri N. Surender, advocate for the Decree-Holder and Judgment-Debtor No.1 having chosen to remain ex parte, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day this Court made the following:-
- O R D E R -
The Decree Holder(DHr) is the petitioner in Arbitration Case No. 312 of 2023 and arbitrator passed award in favour of the petitioner directing 2 of 5 E.P.No. 158 of 2025 the respondents in the arbitration to pay sum of Rs.84,342/- with future interest at 12% P.A on Rs.60,325/- from the date of claim petition till realization and also pay costs of Rs. 2,730/-. The decree holder filed the
E.P for recovery of Rs. 99,867/-. The DHR filed petition for attachment and sale of immovable properties of Judgment-Debtor No.1 (for short JDR
No.1).
2.Notice was sent to the judgment debtor No.1 and there was sufficient service. The Judgments Debtor No.1 did not attend the court and on 06.02.2026 the Judgment Debtor No.1 was set ex parte.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the decree holder. Perused the record.
4. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the award dated 24.07.2024, in Arbitration Case No.312 of 2023 rendered by the sole arbitrator appointed by the decree holder can be executed to enforce it under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
POINT 5(a). The learned counsel for the decree holder has contended that the sole arbitrator has considered all the facts and upon consideration of all the relevant facts and following the procedure established under and laid down in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the award was passed.
5(b). It is contended that the JDRs No.1 has received the notice and did not turn up before the arbitrator. Therefore, the learned arbitrator passed an award, which became final as the respondent/Judgment Debtor No.1 did not challenge it.
5(c). It is further contended that JDR No.1 was set exparte and therefore the movable properties mentioned in the schedules annexed with the petition shall be attached for realization of the execution petition debtor.
3 of 5 E.P.No. 158 of 2025 6. The award was passed by the sole arbitrator. The court has to verify one important aspect while executing the arbitration award i.e., whether the award is executable. It is true that the court would not go behind the award. However, there are certain inexecutable awards and decrees and the court has to decide whether a particular award can be executed. The law of arbitration is based on the principles of party autonomy, equality of the parties and freedom of parties to choose arbitrator.
7. In a Five-Judge Constituent Bench of the Honorable Supreme Court in
Central Organisation for Railway Electrification Vs. M/s ECI SPIC
SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company, (2025) 4 SCC 641( CORE ), it wasobserved that the principle of equal treatment of parties applies at all the stages of arbitration proceedings including the stage of appointment of arbitrators. It was also held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 lays down the procedural framework to regulate the composition of arbitration tribunals and the conduct of arbitration proceedings and it is only when the composition accepted to law then only the arbitration tribunals act objectively and exercise a discretion in a judicious manner without caprice and in accordance with the principles of law and rules of natural justice. The court therefore, has to find out whether the appointment of the Arbitrator in this case is valid and based on it, it is also to be decided whether the award is executable. Before that the court has to find out whether in this case the court can go behind the award and can an objection regarding the validity of the appointment of the arbitrator can be taken during execution proceedings.
4 of 5 E.P.No. 158 of 2025 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad in M/s.
Sundaram Finance Limited v. Medikonda Ramesh and 2 othersin CRP
No. 3856 of 2026, dated 27.02.2026:- Wherein it is held that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court while passing the order in the case of Central
Organization, 2025 (4) SCC 641 has made the judgment applicable prospectively i.e., subsequent to the date of pronouncement of judgment 08.11.2024. Relevant text is extracted below:
170.7: The law laid down in the present reference will apply prospectively to arbitrator appointments to be made after the date of judgment. This direction applies to three member tribunals.
9. In the instance case, the award was passed by the Arbitrator on 24.07.2024, which is much prior to the judgment in the case of Central
Organization for Railway Electrification Vs. M/s ECI SPIC SMO
MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company, (2025) 4 SCC 641( CORE )
of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
10. The learned Arbitrator has passed award on 24.07.2024, directing the respondents/JDRs No.1 and 2 to pay sum of Rs. 84,342/- with future interest at 12% P.A on Rs.60,325/- from the date of claim petition till realization and also pay costs of Rs. 2,730/-.
11. The petitioner contended that JDR No.1 having sufficient means failed to satisfy the award passed by the arbitrator and sought for attachment and sale of movable properties.
12. Considering the award passed by the arbitrator and contention of
D.Hr that JDR. No.1 is having sufficient means to satisfy the decree and 5 of 5 E.P.No. 158 of 2025 willfully he is evading to satisfy the award passed by the arbitrator.
Hence, issue attachment of movable properties of JDR. No.1 under Order 21, Rule 43, C.P.C.
13. In the result, the execution petition is allowed. Issue warrant for attachment of movable property of J.DR. No.1 under Order 21, Rule 43,
C.P.C on payment of process. Call on 30.06.2026.
(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of May, 2026).
Sd/-
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
HANUMAKONDA.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-NIL-
Sd/-
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
HANUMAKONDA.
1 of 5 E.P.No. 158 of 2025
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT HANUMAKONDA
Wednesday, the 6th day of May, 2026
Present: Smt. M.R. Sunitha,
Principal District Judge,
Hanumakonda.
E.P.No. 158 of 2025
in ARB No. 312 of 2023 BETWEEN:
Shriram Finance Limited (Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Amalgamated with Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, subsequently Shriram Transport Company Limited, Name changed as Shriram Finance Limited, by its incorporation certificate dated 13.11.2022) a corporated body registered and incorporated as a company under the Indian Companies Act 1956, is doing Non- Banking financial activities, having its registered office, Sri Towers Plot No. 14-A, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai- 600032 and having its Administrative Office at 6th Floor (level-2), Building No. Q2, Aurum Q parc, Gen 4/1 TTC, Thane Belapur Road, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai-400710 represented by its G.P.A. holder i.e. Sri P. Raju, S/o. Yellaiah, Age: 41 years, Occ: Divisional Recovery Manager, Miryalaguda D.O. …Decree-Holder
AND
1. Polepaka Srilatha, S/o Polepaka Sudhakar, Age: 44 years, R/o. H.No. 25-4-168, Vishnupuri, Telugu Baptish Church, Kazipet, Hanumakonda District.
2. Mahesh Karkal, S/o. Komuraiah, R/o: H.No. 1-171, Geesukonda, Warangal District. … Judgment-Debtors
This Execution Petition came before me on 24.04.2026 in the presence of Sri N. Surender, advocate for the Decree-Holder and Judgment-Debtor No.1 having chosen to remain ex parte, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day this Court made the following:-
- O R D E R -
The Decree Holder(DHr) is the petitioner in Arbitration Case No. 312 of 2023 and arbitrator passed award in favour of the petitioner directing 2 of 5 E.P.No. 158 of 2025 the respondents in the arbitration to pay sum of Rs.84,342/- with future interest at 12% P.A on Rs.60,325/- from the date of claim petition till realization and also pay costs of Rs. 2,730/-. The decree holder filed the
E.P for recovery of Rs. 99,867/-. The DHR filed petition for attachment and sale of immovable properties of Judgment-Debtor No.1 (for short JDR
No.1).
2.Notice was sent to the judgment debtor No.1 and there was sufficient service. The Judgments Debtor No.1 did not attend the court and on 06.02.2026 the Judgment Debtor No.1 was set ex parte.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the decree holder. Perused the record.
4. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the award dated 24.07.2024, in Arbitration Case No.312 of 2023 rendered by the sole arbitrator appointed by the decree holder can be executed to enforce it under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
POINT 5(a). The learned counsel for the decree holder has contended that the sole arbitrator has considered all the facts and upon consideration of all the relevant facts and following the procedure established under and laid down in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the award was passed.
5(b). It is contended that the JDRs No.1 has received the notice and did not turn up before the arbitrator. Therefore, the learned arbitrator passed an award, which became final as the respondent/Judgment Debtor No.1 did not challenge it.
5(c). It is further contended that JDR No.1 was set exparte and therefore the movable properties mentioned in the schedules annexed with the petition shall be attached for realization of the execution petition debtor.
3 of 5 E.P.No. 158 of 2025 6. The award was passed by the sole arbitrator. The court has to verify one important aspect while executing the arbitration award i.e., whether the award is executable. It is true that the court would not go behind the award. However, there are certain inexecutable awards and decrees and the court has to decide whether a particular award can be executed. The law of arbitration is based on the principles of party autonomy, equality of the parties and freedom of parties to choose arbitrator.
7. In a Five-Judge Constituent Bench of the Honorable Supreme Court in
Central Organisation for Railway Electrification Vs. M/s ECI SPIC
SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company, (2025) 4 SCC 641( CORE ), it wasobserved that the principle of equal treatment of parties applies at all the stages of arbitration proceedings including the stage of appointment of arbitrators. It was also held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 lays down the procedural framework to regulate the composition of arbitration tribunals and the conduct of arbitration proceedings and it is only when the composition accepted to law then only the arbitration tribunals act objectively and exercise a discretion in a judicious manner without caprice and in accordance with the principles of law and rules of natural justice. The court therefore, has to find out whether the appointment of the Arbitrator in this case is valid and based on it, it is also to be decided whether the award is executable. Before that the court has to find out whether in this case the court can go behind the award and can an objection regarding the validity of the appointment of the arbitrator can be taken during execution proceedings.
4 of 5 E.P.No. 158 of 2025 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad in M/s.
Sundaram Finance Limited v. Medikonda Ramesh and 2 othersin CRP
No. 3856 of 2026, dated 27.02.2026:- Wherein it is held that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court while passing the order in the case of Central
Organization, 2025 (4) SCC 641 has made the judgment applicable prospectively i.e., subsequent to the date of pronouncement of judgment 08.11.2024. Relevant text is extracted below:
170.7: The law laid down in the present reference will apply prospectively to arbitrator appointments to be made after the date of judgment. This direction applies to three member tribunals.
9. In the instance case, the award was passed by the Arbitrator on 24.07.2024, which is much prior to the judgment in the case of Central
Organization for Railway Electrification Vs. M/s ECI SPIC SMO
MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company, (2025) 4 SCC 641( CORE )
of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
10. The learned Arbitrator has passed award on 24.07.2024, directing the respondents/JDRs No.1 and 2 to pay sum of Rs. 84,342/- with future interest at 12% P.A on Rs.60,325/- from the date of claim petition till realization and also pay costs of Rs. 2,730/-.
11. The petitioner contended that JDR No.1 having sufficient means failed to satisfy the award passed by the arbitrator and sought for attachment and sale of movable properties.
12. Considering the award passed by the arbitrator and contention of
D.Hr that JDR. No.1 is having sufficient means to satisfy the decree and 5 of 5 E.P.No. 158 of 2025 willfully he is evading to satisfy the award passed by the arbitrator.
Hence, issue attachment of movable properties of JDR. No.1 under Order 21, Rule 43, C.P.C.
13. In the result, the execution petition is allowed. Issue warrant for attachment of movable property of J.DR. No.1 under Order 21, Rule 43,
C.P.C on payment of process. Call on 30.06.2026.
(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of May, 2026).
Sd/-
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
HANUMAKONDA.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-NIL-
Sd/-
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
HANUMAKONDA.
1 of 5 E.P.No. 158 of 2025
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT HANUMAKONDA
Wednesday, the 6th day of May, 2026
Present: Smt. M.R. Sunitha,
Principal District Judge,
Hanumakonda.
E.P.No. 158 of 2025
in ARB No. 312 of 2023 BETWEEN:
Shriram Finance Limited (Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Amalgamated with Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, subsequently Shriram Transport Company Limited, Name changed as Shriram Finance Limited, by its incorporation certificate dated 13.11.2022) a corporated body registered and incorporated as a company under the Indian Companies Act 1956, is doing Non- Banking financial activities, having its registered office, Sri Towers Plot No. 14-A, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai- 600032 and having its Administrative Office at 6th Floor (level-2), Building No. Q2, Aurum Q parc, Gen 4/1 TTC, Thane Belapur Road, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai-400710 represented by its G.P.A. holder i.e. Sri P. Raju, S/o. Yellaiah, Age: 41 years, Occ: Divisional Recovery Manager, Miryalaguda D.O. …Decree-Holder
AND
1. Polepaka Srilatha, S/o Polepaka Sudhakar, Age: 44 years, R/o. H.No. 25-4-168, Vishnupuri, Telugu Baptish Church, Kazipet, Hanumakonda District.
2. Mahesh Karkal, S/o. Komuraiah, R/o: H.No. 1-171, Geesukonda, Warangal District. … Judgment-Debtors
This Execution Petition came before me on 24.04.2026 in the presence of Sri N. Surender, advocate for the Decree-Holder and Judgment-Debtor No.1 having chosen to remain ex parte, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day this Court made the following:-
- O R D E R -
The Decree Holder(DHr) is the petitioner in Arbitration Case No. 312 of 2023 and arbitrator passed award in favour of the petitioner directing 2 of 5 E.P.No. 158 of 2025 the respondents in the arbitration to pay sum of Rs.84,342/- with future interest at 12% P.A on Rs.60,325/- from the date of claim petition till realization and also pay costs of Rs. 2,730/-. The decree holder filed the
E.P for recovery of Rs. 99,867/-. The DHR filed petition for attachment and sale of immovable properties of Judgment-Debtor No.1 (for short JDR
No.1).
2.Notice was sent to the judgment debtor No.1 and there was sufficient service. The Judgments Debtor No.1 did not attend the court and on 06.02.2026 the Judgment Debtor No.1 was set ex parte.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the decree holder. Perused the record.
4. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the award dated 24.07.2024, in Arbitration Case No.312 of 2023 rendered by the sole arbitrator appointed by the decree holder can be executed to enforce it under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
POINT 5(a). The learned counsel for the decree holder has contended that the sole arbitrator has considered all the facts and upon consideration of all the relevant facts and following the procedure established under and laid down in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the award was passed.
5(b). It is contended that the JDRs No.1 has received the notice and did not turn up before the arbitrator. Therefore, the learned arbitrator passed an award, which became final as the respondent/Judgment Debtor No.1 did not challenge it.
5(c). It is further contended that JDR No.1 was set exparte and therefore the movable properties mentioned in the schedules annexed with the petition shall be attached for realization of the execution petition debtor.
3 of 5 E.P.No. 158 of 2025 6. The award was passed by the sole arbitrator. The court has to verify one important aspect while executing the arbitration award i.e., whether the award is executable. It is true that the court would not go behind the award. However, there are certain inexecutable awards and decrees and the court has to decide whether a particular award can be executed. The law of arbitration is based on the principles of party autonomy, equality of the parties and freedom of parties to choose arbitrator.
7. In a Five-Judge Constituent Bench of the Honorable Supreme Court in
Central Organisation for Railway Electrification Vs. M/s ECI SPIC
SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company, (2025) 4 SCC 641( CORE ), it wasobserved that the principle of equal treatment of parties applies at all the stages of arbitration proceedings including the stage of appointment of arbitrators. It was also held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 lays down the procedural framework to regulate the composition of arbitration tribunals and the conduct of arbitration proceedings and it is only when the composition accepted to law then only the arbitration tribunals act objectively and exercise a discretion in a judicious manner without caprice and in accordance with the principles of law and rules of natural justice. The court therefore, has to find out whether the appointment of the Arbitrator in this case is valid and based on it, it is also to be decided whether the award is executable. Before that the court has to find out whether in this case the court can go behind the award and can an objection regarding the validity of the appointment of the arbitrator can be taken during execution proceedings.
4 of 5 E.P.No. 158 of 2025 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad in M/s.
Sundaram Finance Limited v. Medikonda Ramesh and 2 othersin CRP
No. 3856 of 2026, dated 27.02.2026:- Wherein it is held that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court while passing the order in the case of Central
Organization, 2025 (4) SCC 641 has made the judgment applicable prospectively i.e., subsequent to the date of pronouncement of judgment 08.11.2024. Relevant text is extracted below:
170.7: The law laid down in the present reference will apply prospectively to arbitrator appointments to be made after the date of judgment. This direction applies to three member tribunals.
9. In the instance case, the award was passed by the Arbitrator on 24.07.2024, which is much prior to the judgment in the case of Central
Organization for Railway Electrification Vs. M/s ECI SPIC SMO
MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company, (2025) 4 SCC 641( CORE )
of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
10. The learned Arbitrator has passed award on 24.07.2024, directing the respondents/JDRs No.1 and 2 to pay sum of Rs. 84,342/- with future interest at 12% P.A on Rs.60,325/- from the date of claim petition till realization and also pay costs of Rs. 2,730/-.
11. The petitioner contended that JDR No.1 having sufficient means failed to satisfy the award passed by the arbitrator and sought for attachment and sale of movable properties.
12. Considering the award passed by the arbitrator and contention of
D.Hr that JDR. No.1 is having sufficient means to satisfy the decree and 5 of 5 E.P.No. 158 of 2025 willfully he is evading to satisfy the award passed by the arbitrator.
Hence, issue attachment of movable properties of JDR. No.1 under Order 21, Rule 43, C.P.C.
13. In the result, the execution petition is allowed. Issue warrant for attachment of movable property of J.DR. No.1 under Order 21, Rule 43,
C.P.C on payment of process. Call on 30.06.2026.
(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of May, 2026).
Sd/-
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
HANUMAKONDA.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-NIL-
Sd/-
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
HANUMAKONDA.
Order Record 2 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AS/41/2023 | Akula Ravinder vs Gankidi Damodar Reddy | 06 May 2026 | Judgement | — |
| EP/158/2025 | Shriram Finance Limited Represented by its GPA Sri G P A Holder P RAJU vs POLEPAKA SRILATHA | 06 May 2026 | Order | — |
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has M.R.Sunitha handled?
M.R.Sunitha has handled 5 court orders since 2026 at Hanumakonda, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 4 orders per month.
What types of cases does M.R.Sunitha hear?
Based on available records, M.R.Sunitha primarily handles Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Appeal Suits) at Hanumakonda, PDJ Court Complex.
Where is M.R.Sunitha currently posted?
M.R.Sunitha is posted as Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda at Hanumakonda, PDJ Court Complex, Hanumakonda, Telangana.
Are judgments by M.R.Sunitha available online?
Yes. 5 judgments by M.R.Sunitha are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does M.R.Sunitha dispose cases?
M.R.Sunitha disposes approximately 4 cases per month, based on 5 orders handled over their tenure at Hanumakonda, PDJ Court Complex.
Since when is M.R.Sunitha serving?
M.R.Sunitha has been serving at Hanumakonda, PDJ Court Complex since 2026. and is currently posted there.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Apr 2026 — PresentPrincipal District and Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda · 5 orders
Other Judges at this Court