Dismissed

Pasupuleti Jayaprada (Died) v. Desireddy Raghava Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Dec 2021CRP/953/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to set aside an 11-year-old stay order relying on the respondent's delay in appeal. The court dismissed the revision, noting delay is not a valid ground for setting aside such old orders. However, the appellate court was directed to dispose of the 11-year-old appeal within four months.

What did the court decide?

The appellate court is directed to dispose of the pending appeal within four months.

Pasupuleti Jayaprada (Died) Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.953 of 2021

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioners herein had filed O.S.No.373 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur for evicting the respondent herein from the suit schedule property. The suit was allowed by way of a Judgment and Decree dated 06.09.2010. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the respondent has approached the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur by way of A.S.No.10 of 2010. Along with this appeal, the respondent had also filed I.A.No.53 of 2010 for stay of operation of the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.373 of 2002. This application was allowed on 02.11.2010. Thereafter, the appeal was transferred to the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Gudur and renumbered as A.S.No.19 of 2016.

¶4

The petitioners’ complaint is that on account of the stay of operation of the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court, the respondent herein is delaying the disposal of the appeal by filing various applications. The petitioners contend that setting aside the order of stay granted by the appellate Court in November, 2010 is required, as the respondent does not have any cause in the appeal and is only delaying the appeal.

¶5

Heard Sri Varadha Rajulu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Rajendra Bussa, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri C.Subodh, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶6

¶7

The contention of the petitioners to set aside the order dated 02.11.2010 in I.A.No.53 of 2010 in A.S.No.10 of 2010 is that the appeal is being delayed by the respondent. Such a contention cannot be a ground for setting aside the order passed 11 years back.

¶8

In the circumstances, this C.R.P. is dismissed. However, the appellate Court shall take steps to expeditiously dispose of the appeal, which has been pending from 11 years. The appellate Court shall endeavor to dispose of the appeal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶10

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶11

17.12.2021 SDP

¶12

¶13

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶14

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.953 of 2021

¶15

17-12-2021

¶16

SDP

Pasupuleti Jayaprada (Died) v. Desireddy Raghava Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pasupuleti Jayaprada (Died) v. Desireddy Raghava Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maganti Sarath Vs Maganti at Vankina Sri Vidya

Maganti Sarath Vs Maganti Alias Vankina Sri Vidya

Nimmagal Shahin, Vs T.M. Musibur Rahaman

P.SubbaLaxmamma, Vs The Assistant Commissioner

K.Satyanandh Vs The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department

Muktevi Srinivasa Rao Vs Alapati V.R. Satya Prasad