Dismissed

Smt. K.Krishnakumari, v. Darapaneni Krishnakumar

Telangana HC2 Jul 2010CRP/821/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the Principal Junior Civil Judge's action of not numbering an interim application. The Court deemed the petition frivolous due to lack of valid grounds and absence of docket proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs awarded.

Smt. K.Krishnakumari, Vs Darapaneni… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH

¶2

C.R.P.NO.821 OF 2010

¶3

Dt.2.7.2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

K.Krishnamumari ..Petitioner And

¶6

Darapaneni Krishnakumar ..Respondent

¶7

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH

¶8

C.R.P.NO.821 OF 2010

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

Petitioner herein is the defendant.

¶11

This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the action of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, in not ordering to number of the I.A., which was filed through R.R.No.7041 of 2009 for recalling P.W.2 for cross-examination.

¶12

It is stated that the respondent filed suit in O.S.No.55 of 2006 for mere injunction and the daughter of the petitioner also filed a suit in O.S.No.355 of 2008 for partition in which the petitioner is a party. Therefore, the application under Section 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was filed to take evidence in O.S.No.55 of 2006 as well as O.S.No.355 of 2008 to decide the matter commonly.

¶13

The perusal of the affidavit filed before the court below does not disclose any valid grounds, but whereas the revision petition is filed contending that the said I.A. said to have been filed is not even assigned for numbering and entirely a new version has been taken in the affidavit making serious allegations against the Presiding Officer stating that till the said Presiding Officer is there no justice will be done to her.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶15

Presiding Officer has already been transferred and stated that arguments in the matter were heard and the case was reserved for orders.

¶16

Petitioner has not filed any docket proceedings with regard to the events that took place as to when the evidence was closed and when arguments were heard.

¶17

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this revision petition is frivolous and without any justification. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶18

V.ESWARAIAH, J. 2.7.2010 kpr

Smt. K.Krishnakumari, v. Darapaneni Krishnakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K.Krishnakumari, v. Darapaneni Krishnakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Balakishan Vs State of A.P and 3 Others

Kanchanapalli Lalitha, Vs I/C Police Transport Organisation, Hyderabad. A.P.

Dummani Chena Kesaiah , Uppa Kesaiah, Vs The Superintendent of Police

S.a.Khader Valli Vs P.H.Swarna Latha

D. Jayamma Vs M.Sanath Kumar

G.Prameela, Vs R.Venkata Reddy