Allowed

Rekha v. Mohd.Rasheed

Telangana HC25 Jun 2012TRCMP/127/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court allowed the transfer civil miscellaneous petition. It ordered the withdrawal of a suit previously transferred to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge and its transfer to a Fast Track Court to allow concurrent trial with a related suit arising from the same accident involving common evidence.

What did the court decide?

O.P.No.666 of 2010 transferred to the Court of IX-Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court) to try along with O.P.No.1300 of 2010.

Rekha Vs Mohd.Rasheed — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT::

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Tr.C.M.P.No.127 OF 2012

Between:

Rekha

…Petitioner

A n d

Mohd.Rasheed and others

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Tr.C.M.P.No.127 OF 2012

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This transfer civil miscellaneous petition is filed seeking withdrawal of O.P.No.666 of 2010, pending on the file of the

¶14

V-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad and transfer the same to the Court of IX-Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶15

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent. Perused the record.

¶16

3. It is stated that respondents 1 to 5, 7 & 8 filed

¶17

O.P.No.666 of 2010 and respondent No.6 filed another O.P.No.1300 of 2010 claiming compensation pursuant to the same accident. Initially, both O.Ps were pending before II-Additional Chief Judge, C i t y Civil Court, Hyderabad. Subsequently, it is stated that on administrative grounds O.P.No.666 of 2010 was transferred to the Court of V-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally and O.P.No.1300 of 2010 was transferred to the Court of IX-Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶18

4. As both OPs arise out of the same accident and all the claimants are stated to be the legal heirs of the same deceased person, it is only just and proper that both OPs be tried and disposed of by the same Court so as to avoid conflict of judicial opinion. Further, it would be in the interest of both parties to have both matters disposed of together, as the evidence that may be adduced in both the OPs would be common.

¶19

5. In the circumstances, it is considered just and proper that O.P.No.666 of 2010 which is since transferred to the file of the

¶20

V-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, is transferred to the Court of IX-Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, so as to be tried along with O.P.No.1300 of 2010 and the same is accordingly withdrawn and transferred.

¶21

6. The transfer civil miscellaneous petition is ordered accordingly as stated above. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 25^th June, 2012 Lrkm

Rekha v. Mohd.Rasheed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekha v. Mohd.Rasheed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G Narayana Goud, Vs The Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector

Balarao Madhav Vs The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Madhusudhan Cheruku, Vs The Secretary

The Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs Ijjagiri Rajeshwari

Avirneni Rama Krishna, Vs The Special Deputy Collector

Syed Afsar Ali Khan Vs Smt.Usha Bai