Dismissed
Vemulapalli Vidyasagar Rao v. Bobba Ranga Rao
Telangana HCCRP/4319/2012
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
MR. JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Review CRP…
What did the court decide?
No costs
What the court decided
AI extract
MR. JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Review CRP…
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.
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
Review CRP MP 7545 of 2012
in
Civil Revision Petition No. 4319 OF 2012
O R D E R:
None appears for the petitioner in this review petition. Learned counsel for the respondent – decree holder is present. CRP No. 4319 of 2012 was dismissed by this court on 11.9.2012 holding that the Items (1) and (2) of the schedule property which have been purchased by the respondent – decree holder after obtaining the permission of the court, have been delivered by the bailiff of the court on 25.8.2012 itself, whereas the revision is moved in this court on 29.8.2012 and hence it has become infructuous. Learned counsel for the decree holder – respondent would also inform that EP itself has been closed on 27.9.2012 duly recording the delivery. No grounds are made out for reviewing the roder as there is no apparent error on record. Hence, this review petition is dismissed. No costs.
Review CRP MP No. 7544 of 2012
In view of the dismissal of the review petition No. 7545 of 2012, no further orders are needed to be passed in this CRP MP. Hence, this petition is dismissed. No costs.
_________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J
4th February, 2013
Knk
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
Review CRP MP 7545 and 7544 of 2012 in
Civil Revision Petition No. 4319 OF 2012
4th February 2013
knk
Petitioner
Respondent – Decree Holder
Nooty Ramamohana Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court