Disposed

Bolleddula Sakkabai v. Sd. Babu

Telangana HC11 Mar 2010CRP/2399/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of two civil revision petitions where the older one was dismissed as not pressed, and the newer one was disposed of at admission stage by directing the trial court to conclude the underlying execution application within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directing trial court to dispose of EA No.118 of 2001 in EP No.38 of 2009 in O.S. No.24 of 1995 not later than six months.

Bolleddula Sakkabai Vs Sd. Babu — Telangana HC (2010) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT:

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2399 OF 2009 AND 2868 OF 2001

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2399 OF 2009

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Bolleddula Sakkubai w/o. late Veerraju

¶9

…. Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

Sd. Babu S/o. Subhan and others

¶12

…. Respondents CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2868 OF 2001 BETWEEN:

¶13

Bolledu Veerraju S/o. Pullaiah (died per L.R.) Bolledu Sakkubai W/o. Late Veerraju

¶14

… Petitioner AND

¶15

Syed Babu S/o. Subhan and others

¶16

…. Respondents

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY

¶18

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2399 OF 2009 AND 2868 OF 2001

¶19

COMMON ORDER:

¶20

The Civil Revision Petition No.2399 of 2009 is filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23-01-2009 in EA No.118 of 2001 in EP No.38 of 2009 in O.S. No.24 of 1995 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, Khammam District and the Civil Revision Petition No.2868 of 2001 is filed by the petitioner therein

¶21

against the order dated 30-04-2001 in EA No.116 of 2000 in EP No.38 of 1999 in O.S. No.24 of 1995 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶22

2. Heard.

¶23

3. Learned counsel appearing for both sides have reported that the CRP No.2868 of 2001 may be disposed of in view of the filing of CRP No.2399 of 2009, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue EA No.118 of 2001 in EP No.38 of 2009 in O.S. No.24 of 1995.

¶24

4. Therefore, the CRP No.2868 of 2001 is dismissed as not pressed giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue EA No.118 of 2001 in EP No.38 of 2009 in O.S. No.24 of 1995.

¶25

5. In view of the disposal of CRP No.2868 of 2001, the CRP No.2399 of 2009 is also disposed of directing the trial Court to dispose of EA No.118 of 2001 in EP No.38 of 2009 in O.S. No.24 of 1995 as expeditiously as possible, in any case, not later than six months from today.

¶26

6. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition No.2868 of 2001 is dismissed as not pressed and Civil Revision Petition No.2399 of 2009 is disposed of at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs.

¶27

_____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J March 11, 2010. KTL

Bolleddula Sakkabai v. Sd. Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bolleddula Sakkabai v. Sd. Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandagiri Geetha, Vs Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangatan

V.Nagaraju, Vs The Assistant Social Welfare Officer

Sri v.S.N.Reddy, Vs The Vice Chairman and Managing Director

Md. Ruknuddin, Vs The Managing Director

Jyothi Ram Chiwade, Vs Union of India

Md.Ruknuddin, Vs The Managing Director