Petitioner alleged the trial court reserved a suit for judgment without an effective opportunity to argue. The High Court directed the trial court to hear the petitioner's final arguments before pronouncing judgment, with timelines for filing arguments, and disposed of the revision petition without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1766 of 2024
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Order dated 29/07/2024 in lA No.621/2024 in OS No.409 of 2015 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, KrishnaDistrict.
Between:
M/s.Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited, A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 Represented by its authorized Signatory, V.Ratna Kumar, S/o V.Lakshman Rao, Aged about 59 years, Occ; Employee, R/o 7-1-413/1/A/401, Sri Durga Vihar Apartments, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Telangana.
...Petitioner/Petitioner/First Defendant
AND
...Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
(Not Necessary Party)
...Respondent/Respondent/Second Defendant
i
(second respondent is not a necessary party to the present revision petition)
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.409of2015onthefileof VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M R K Chakravarthy
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 ; Sri VV Ravi Prasad
The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1766 OF 2024
ORDER:
- After hearing the learned counsels, the area of thedispute appears that the trial Court has reserved the matterforjudgment, without affording an opportunity of hearing to thepetitioner.Rather, it is contended that the opportunity afforded is illusionaryasthe matter was listed very next day for judgment, afterrejectingthe application.
i
2
the final arguments before the trial Court. Such memo shall be moved on or before 10.09.2024, fixing the date for submitting arguments.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.
//TRUE COPY//
SD/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECtIoM OFFICER
To
TK sree
haf'
I I I fi I I
f
<br><br>
HIGH COURT
\
bATED:04/09/2024 *
ORDER
CRP.No.1766 of 2024 g 0 5 SEP 202'! S
<br>^ . Current Section
% *»,
DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court could pronounce judgment without affording the petitioner/first defendant an effective opportunity of hearing?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s.Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited
Musunuru Apparao
Valluru Venkateswara Rao
G.Narendar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
