Disposed

Yaddula Hanumantha Reddy v. Y Narasimha Reddy

Telangana HC28 Oct 2013CRP/4285/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the inaction of a lower court in an interim injunction application due to lawyers' strikes. The court held that without counsel appearance, it could not direct disposal, permitting petitioners to instruct lawyers to file a cooperation memo.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of without a direct order for disposal of the interlocriutory application, pending a memo from the petitioners' lawyer.

Yaddula Hanumantha Reddy Vs Y Narasimha Reddy — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4285 of 2013

¶3

Date:28.10.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Yaddula Hanumantha Reddy, S/o Late Vijaya Dasaradharami Reddy and three others.

¶6

..... Petitioners

¶7

And:

¶8

Y.Narasimha Reddy, S/o Venkataseshi Reddy and another.

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri N.Parameswara Reddy

¶11

Counsel for the Respondents: --

¶12

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the purported inaction of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, Prakasam District, in passing order in I.A.No.549 of 2012 in O.S.No.204 of 2012.

¶14

The petitioners filed the above-mentioned suit against the respondents for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 11.01.2006. They have also filed I.A.No.549 of 2012 in the said suit for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession.

¶15

The grievance of the petiteonrs is that the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, has not been disposing of the said I.A.

¶16

The undeniable fact, which this Court is taking judicial notice, is that the lawyers in the two regions of this State i.e., Andhra and Rayalaseema have been on strike for more than 80 days and that no lawyer in these regions is appearing before the Courts and assisting them. Without the help and assistance of the lawyers, it is next to impossible for the Courts to dispose of the cases, be it main cases or interlocutory cases. The petitioners have not pleaded that their lawyer was appearing before the Court below and requesting it to dispose of the said I.A. Therefore, no direction can be issued to the Court below unless the lawyer of the petitioners appears before it. The petitioners are permitted to approach their lawyer with a request to appear before the Court below. If and when the lawyer of the petitioners files a memo that he will cooperate in disposal of the said I.A., the Court below shall, after notice to the respondents, hear and dispose of the said I.A. expeditiously.

¶17

Subject to the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

¶18

As a sequel to disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.5821 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 28^th October, 2013 DR

Yaddula Hanumantha Reddy v. Y Narasimha Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yaddula Hanumantha Reddy v. Y Narasimha Reddy

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

Damacherla Purnanand , Purnaiah, Vs Damacherla Srujana

Smt. Junjuru Varalakshmi, Vs The District Collect

Doppalapudi Vajramma Vs The Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh

Mr. Mohd. Zaheer Ahmed, S/o. Mr. Fathe Mohammed Vs a. P. State Wakf Board

Smt. Shameem Sultana, Vs The District Collector

Bandi Brahmaiah, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh