IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

: CITY CIVIL COURT :AT HYDERABAD

O.S. NO. OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1. S. Ravinder, S/o Late S. Balram,

Aged about 54 years, Occ: Govt Employee,
R/o Flat no.303, Eden Apartments,
Bahloolkhanguda, Hyderabad

….PLAINTIFF

AND
1. Sridhar, S/o Not known to Plaintiff,
Aged about 55 years, Occ: Secretary,
Eden Apartments Owners Welfare Association,
R/o 407, Block B, Eden Apartment,
Bahloolkhanguda, Hyderabad.

2. Sheik Roshan,
Aged about years, Occ: Housewife,
Flat no.307, Block B, Eden Apartment,
Bahloolkhanguda, Hyderabad.

3. Prabha Khandalia, W/o Pavan Khandalia,

Aged about 55 years, Occ: Housewife,
Flat no.305, Block B, Eden Apartment,
Bahloolkhanguda, Hyderabad.

4. G. Vidya, W/o Rajeshwar Rao,

Aged about 65 years, Occ: Housewife,
Flat no.307, Block B, Eden Apartment,
Bahloolkhanguda, Hyderabad.

…..DEFENDANTS

SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION

PLAINT FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULES 1 & 2 READ WITH
SECTION 26 OF CPC

I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAINTIFFS

The description of the plaintiffs is the same as stated above in the cause

title and the address for service of all notices, summons etc., that of the
plaintiff is of his Counsel Sri S. Nagesh Reddy, Advocate, Flat No. 101

and 102, First Floor, Saipriyaa Apartment, 6-3-663/7/6, Jaffer Ali

Bagh, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE DEFENDANTS

The description of the Defendants for the purpose of the service of

notices, summons, etc., is as same as stated above in the cause Title.

III. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

1. It is submitted that the Plaintiff purchased Flat No. 303, bearing

Municipal No. 7-1-275/E/303, Eden Apartments, admeasuring 1040 sq.

ft. in Municipal No. 7-1-275, Survey Nos 21, 22 and 27, B. K. Guda,

Hyderabad, hereinafter referred to as “Suit Schedule Property”, from Mrs.

Fatima Sultana vide a Sale Deed dated 16.02.2012 bearing document no.

242/2012.

2. It is submitted that the Sale Deed dated 16.02.2012 also stipulates

that the Plaintiffs would hold and enjoy the common facilities and other

easementary rights. Further, clause 11 of the Sale Deed reads as under,

“11. That the Vendee (Plaintiffs) shall as a matter of necessity

enjoy the undivided share in the said property hereby sold and

conveyed in common and consistent with the rights and interests

of the owners of the other undivided shares in the said property

and use all common drains, water sources, amenities, now existing

or hereafter to be created in the said property in common with the

aforesaid owners and permit freely to run and pass the water and

soil through or along with the same or any of them and ‘share’

with them the cost of repair and maintenance of all such common

amenities,”
3. It is submitted that the Plaintiff had subsequently taken over the

possession of the Suit Schedule Property and continues to live till date. It

is submitted that the Plaintiff had been paying his electricity bills, water

and amenities bills, maintenance without fail or delay since taking over

possession of the Suit Schedule Property to the Eden Apartments Flat

Owners Association.

4. It is submitted that the plaintiff herein previously was the

president of the Eden Apartment Flat Owners Welfare Association. It is

further submitted that the Defendants herein were never at good terms

with the plaintiff herein and had always created hurdles for the plaintiff,

even during his term as the president of the Association.

5. It is submitted that soon after the Plaintiff completed his term as

the president, the Defendant no.1 became the secretary of the Apartment

Association started hounding the Plaintiff herein by using one pretext or

another.

6. It is submitted that as time passed by, the relationship between

the Plaintiff and Defendants had deteriorated due to several

confrontations and hardships created by the Defendants for reasons best

known to them. Further, the Defendants targeted the Plaintiff by making

abusive and personal tirades against him, by seeking to lower his

reputation in society, by threatening him and disturbing his mental

peace. In fact, the Defendants had almost made it a routine to abuse the

Plaintiff by launching vituperative tirades against the Plaintiff when he is

on his way to work and also when he came back home from work, almost

causing him to suffer by the thought of having to be at or go home. It is

further submitted that the Plaintiff had expressed his discomforts and

the extreme stress being faced by him in this regard.

7. It is submitted that the unwarranted actions of the Defendants

had caused mental trauma to the family members of the Plaintiff herein.

Further, the Plaintiff himself suffered mentally and tried to seek the help

of other neighbours and Apartment people on multiple occasions.

8. It is submitted that the matters have deteriorated further to the

detriment of the Plaintiff in the past year. It is submitted that the

Defendants for a long time refused to entertain the complaints of the

Plaintiff for no reason and that has caused considerable inconvenience to

the Plaintiff besides that act being completely against the very base

function of an Association.

9. It is submitted that the Defendants had went on and started

threatening to cut water supply to the Plaintiff’s home i.e.,. Suit Schedule

Property on 04th January, 2021 for no reason but out of spite and

sadism. It is further submitted that during this ongoing Global Covid-19

pandemic water is highly essential to maintain cleanliness and sanitised

surroundings. It is further submitted that the misery caused by absence

of water supply need not be explained to this Court. Further, after paying

maintenance regularly, informing the owners of the stoppage of water

supply, and seeking the help of neighbours have gone in vain.

10. It is submitted that Plaintiff sought to put up CCTV cameras in

and around the Suit Schedule Property and the apartment complex to

expose the Defendants and their irrational behaviour but the Defendants

highhandedly resisted the same and they even threatened the CCTV

technicians.
11. It is submitted that as can be seen from the abovementioned facts,

the Defendants’ behaviours borders on the torture and sadism. It is

pertinent to mention herein that, having absolute doubts over the

intellectual capacity of the Defendants, the Defendants could well be

succeeding in psychologically defeating the Plaintiff through their

actions. Further emphasizing the peculiarity of the case and the

highhandedness of the Defendants, the apartment complex association

Secretary to whom the grievances can be taken to, is the main individual

who is harassing the Plaintiff herein, resulting in the Defendants running

a monopoly or a totalitarian system.

12. It is submitted that despite the above, the Plaintiff never used any

forceful or violent means against the Defendants, as such, the Plaintiff is

left with no other alternative, except to approach this Hon’ble Court by

way of a suit for injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering

with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs over the Suit Schedule

Property and from enjoyment of the basic necessities in life, regular

supply of water and electricity. The threat of the Defendants to

discontinue such basic supplies to the Plaintiff is in violation of his

fundamental right to live and such illegal actions cannot be permitted.

As such, the plaintiff is before this court seeking appropriate relief of

injunction, restraining the Defendants from interfering with the

possession of the plaintiff over suit schedule property and from

interfering with the supply of basic necessities such as water and

electricity to the plaintiff in the suit schedule property.

13. It is submitted that the balance of convenience and prima facie

case rests in favour of the Plaintiff and in case, the present suit for
injunction is not granted, the Plaintiffs shall be put to irreparable loss

and injury which cannot be compensated in any other manner. In one

such effort, the Defendant No.1 acting as secretary to the welfare

association of the flat owners in the building complex tried to disconnect

the electricity on 05.01.2020 and the same was resisted by the plaintiff.

As such, the cause of action arose to file the present suit.

14. It is submitted that the Plaintiff thus has locus standi to file the

present suit for injunction, as the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief

claimed in this suit.

15. CAUSE OF ACTION:

The cause of action initially arose on 04.01.2020 when the Defendant

tried to disconnect water supply to the Suit Schedule Property, and on

05.01.2020 when the defendants tried to disconnect the electricity

connection the property of the plaintiff and on all such other dates

constituting cause of action.

16. DECLARATION:

The Plaintiff did not file any suit or proceedings in any court of law with

regard to the above cause of action against the Defendants herein and to

the best of their knowledge, no suit or proceedings are pending in any

court of law.

17. JURISDICTION:

That the Suit Schedule Property is situated at B. K. Guda, S. R. Nagar,

Hyderabad, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble

Court.
18. LIMITATION:

The suit is filed well within limitation as the cause of action for the

present suit finally arose on 05.01.2020.

COURT FEE:

The relief of injunction is notionally valued at Rs._____________

nominally, and a court fee of Rs._______-/- is paid under Section 26(c) of

A.P. Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act.

PRAYER:

The Plaintiffs therefore pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

pass a Judgment and Decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the

Defendants:

1. To grant perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants or their

agents or any other person/s claiming through or under them from
interfering with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs over the Suit
Schedule Property;

2. To grant perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants or their

agents or any other person/s claiming through or under them from
disconnecting the power and water supply to the suit schedule property
belonging to the Plaintiff;

3. Award costs of the suit and,

3. Grant such other relief or reliefs to the Plaintiffs, as this Hon’ble

Court deems fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS PLAINTIFF

 VERIFICATION

I, S. Ravinder the plaintiff herein, do hereby declare that the facts

stated above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief,
information and advice. Hence, verified on this the day of January,
2021 at Hyderabad.

PLAINTIFF

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

All that property in Flat No. 303, bearing Municipal No. 7-1-

275/E/303, Eden Apartments, admeasuring 1233 sq. ft. in Municipal

No. 7-1-275, Survey no.21, 22 & 27, B. K. Guda, Hyderabad, bound on:

NORTH: Open to Sky

EAST: Flat no.302

WEST: Corridor

SOUTH: Open to Sky

PLAINTIFF

VERIFICATION

I, S. Ravinder, the plaintiff herein, do hereby declare that the schedule

above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief, information

and advice. Hence, verified on this the day of January, 2020 at

Hyderabad.

PLAINTIFF
 LIST OF DOCUMENTS

S. No. Date Parties to Description of Document

Document

1 16-2-2012 plaintiff Sale deed

2 - plaintiff photograph

PLAINTIFF COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY
CIVIL COURT

AT HYDERABAD

O.S. NO. OF 2021

BETWEEN:

S. Ravinder,
….PLAINTIFF

AND

Sridhar & 3 others

…..DEFENDANTS

SUIT FOR INJUNCTION

PLAINT FILED UNDER

ORDER VII RULES 1 & 2
READ WITH SECTION 26 OF
CPC

Filed on: .01.2021

Filed by:

S. NAGESH REDDY
G. VAMSHI KRISHNA
K. SUYODH REDDY
S. SIDDHARTH
ADVOCATES

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

 IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL
COURT
AT HYDERABAD
O.S. NO. OF 2021
BETWEEN:
S. Ravinder
….PLAINTIFFS
AND
Sridhar & 3 others
…..DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT OF VERIFICATION

I, S. Ravinder S/o Late S. Balram ,Aged: about 54 years, Occ: Govt

Employee R/o: Flat No. 303,Municipal No. 7-1-275/E/303,B.K. Guda,
Hyderabad, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

1. I am the deponent herein and Plaintiff in the above suit, as such I

am well acquainted with the facts of the case and do hereby swear to

the contents of this affidavit.

2. I have filed the above suit for a injunction and I do hereby confirm

and reiterate that the facts stated in the plaint are true and correct to

the best of my knowledge, belief, information and advice and verified

accordingly.

Hence, this affidavit.

Solemnly affirmed and signed

On this the day of April, 2018
At Hyderabad, before me:

DEPONENT

ADVOCATE : HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY
CIVIL COURT

AT HYDERABAD

O.S. NO. OF 2021

BETWEEN:

S. Ravinder,
….PLAINTIFFS
AND
Sridhar & 3 others
…..DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT OF
VERIFICATION

Filed on: .01.2021

Filed by:

S. NAGESH REDDY
G. VAMSHI KRISHNA
K. SUYODH REDDY
S. SIDDHARTH
ADVOCATES

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

 IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL
COURT
AT HYDERABAD
O.S. NO. OF 2021
BETWEEN:
S. Ravinder
….PLAINTIFFS
AND
Sridhar & 3 others
…..DEFENDANTS

STATEMENT OF FULL ADDRESS OF THE DEFENDANTS AS

REQUIRED UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 14 A R/W. SEC. 151 OF CPC

S.NO NAME AND FATHER’S OR HUSBAND’S FULL ADDRESS OF

NAME THE DEFENDANTS

1. Sridhar,
Aged about 55 years, Occ: Secretary,
Eden Apartments Owners Welfare Association,
R/o 407, Block B, Eden Apartment,
Bahloolkhanguda, Hyderabad.

2. Sheik Roshan,
Aged about years, Occ: Housewife,
Flat no.307, Block B, Eden Apartment,
Bahloolkhanguda, Hyderabad.

3. Prabha Khandulia, W/o Pavan Khandulia,

Aged about 55 years, Occ: Housewife,
Flat no.305, Block B, Eden Apartment,
Bahloolkhanguda, Hyderabad.

4. G. Vidya, W/o Rajeshwar Rao,

Aged about 65 years, Occ: Housewife,
Flat no.307, Block B, Eden Apartment,
Bahloolkhanguda, Hyderabad.

________________________________________________________________________

HYDERABAD
.01.2021 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY
CIVIL COURT

AT HYDERABAD

O.S. NO. OF 2021

BETWEEN:

S. Ravinder,
….PLAINTIFFS
AND
Sridhar & 3 others
…..DEFENDANTS

STATEMENT OF FULL
ADDRESS OF THE
DEFENDANT AS REQUIRED
UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 14 A
READ WITH SECTION 151
OF CPC

Filed on: .01.2021

Filed by:

S. NAGESH REDDY
G. VAMSHI KRISHNA
K. SUYODH REDDY
S. SIDDHARTH
ADVOCATES
 IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL
COURT
AT HYDERABAD
O.S. NO. OF 2021
BETWEEN:
S. Ravinder
….PLAINTIFFS
AND
Sridhar & 3 others
…..DEFENDANTS

I, S. Ravinder S/o Late S. Balram ,Aged: about 54 years, Occ: Govt

Employee R/o: Flat No. 303,Municipal No. 7-1-275/E/303,B.K. Guda,
Hyderabad do hereby appoint:
S. NAGESH REDDY
G. VAMSHI KRISHNA
K. SUYODH REDDY
S. SIDDHARTH
ADVOCATES

Advocate/s to appear for me/us in the above Suit/Appeal/Petition/Case and to

conduct and prosecute and defend the same and all proceedings that may be taken
in respect of any application for execution of any decree or order passed therein.
I/we empower my/our Advocate/s to appear in all miscellaneous proceedings in the
above suit or matter till al decrees or order are fully satisfied, or adjusted, to
compromise and obtain the return of Documents and draw any money that might be
payable to me/us in the said suit or matter and I/We do further empower my / our
Advocate/s to accept on my / our behalf service of notice of all or any appeal or
petition filed in any Court or appeal Reference or Revision with regard the said suit or
matter before disposal of the same in Honourable Court.

Certified that the executant who is well acquainted with English read this
Vakalatnama and that the contents of the Vakalatnama were read out and explained
in Urdu / Hindi / Telugu to the executant he/she/they being unacquainted with English
who appeared perfectly to understand the same and signed or put his/her/their name
or mark in my presence.

Identified by: Sri___________________________

Executed _______________ day of January, 2021

ADVOCATE
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY
CIVIL COURT

AT HYDERABAD
O.S. NO. OF 2021
BETWEEN:

S. Ravinder,
….PLAINTIFFS
AND
Sridhar & 3 others
…..DEFENDANTS

VAKALAT
ACCEPTED

Filed on: .01.2021

Filed by:

S. NAGESH REDDY
G. VAMSHI KRISHNA
K. SUYODH REDDY
S. SIDDHARTH
ADVOCATES

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

_____________________
Address for Service:

S.NAGESH REDDY
ADVOCATE
101 & 102, “SAAI PRIYA”
6-3-663/7/6, Jafferalibagh,
Somajiguda, Hyderabad–82
Ph: 040–23303350