The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held the revision petition infructuous and dismissed it after the petitioner's counsel submitted that the underlying order had rendered the revision superfluous.
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 JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
C.R.P. No.1195 of 2010
Between:
Sri Ramkishan Rao Pawar and others
Petitioners
And
Ekachakra Hire Purchase and Finance Private Limited, Nizamabad
Respondent
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
C.R.P. No.1195 of 2010
ORDER:
This revision petition has been filed aggrieved by order dated 29.01.2010 passed in I.A. No.246 of 2009 in O.S. No.40 of 2006 dismissing the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the docket order dated 22.03.2010 passed in O.S. No.40 of 2006 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Bodhan and submitted that the subject matter of the revision petition has become infructuous and no further orders are required to be passed in this revision.
Accordingly, recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, this revision petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
Date: 16.04.2010 LSK
Sri Ramkishan Rao Pawar and others
Ekachakra Hire Purchase and Finance Private Limited, Nizamabad
G. Chandraiah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
