Single-judge order dismissing a civil miscellaneous appeal for being infructuous due to the suit's disposal via conduct, as no representation was filed.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed. No 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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY
C.M.A.No. 118 of 2002
O R D E R:
There is no representation on behalf of the appellants.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the order dated 30.11.2001 in I.A.No. 181 of 2001 in O.S.No. 176 of 1998 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.
The appellants-plaintiffs filed I.A.No. 181 of 2001 under Order 40 Rule 1(a) C.P.C. seeking for appointment of Receiver for collection of monthly rents and to deposit half of the said collected monthly rents to the credit of the suit, pending disposal of the suit.
The conduct of the appellants in not pursuing the appeal indicates that the suit itself may have been disposed of. Such is the situation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has become infructuous and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.
------------------------------------
(B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J)
28th October 2009
ksld
Appellants
B. SESHASAYANA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
