Disposed

Maddipatla Chakravarthi, v. The Jr. Engineer, Irrigation Department

Telangana HC25 Feb 2013CRP/493/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a civil revision petition alleging delay by the lower court in hearing an interlocutory application seeking an ex parte temporary injunction, directing the lower court to decide the application on merits within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Principal Senior Civil Judge to take up and dispose of I.A.No.322 of 2012 on merits within two weeks.

Maddipatla Chakravarthi, Vs The Jr… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.493 of 2013

¶2

DATED: 25.02.2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

Maddipatla Chakravarthi and others

¶5

... Petitioners/Plaintiffs

¶6

And

¶7

The Jr.Enginer, Irrigation Department and others … Respondents/Defendants

¶8

The Court made the following:

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.493 of 2013

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

The complaint of the petitioners herein, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.62 of 2012 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally, Khammam District, is that the Court below is not taking up I.A.No.322 of 2012 filed by them in the said suit for interlocutory relief and was adjourning the matter time and again.

¶12

2. Respondents 4 to 7 in the Civil Revision Petition, who are shown as not necessary parties, are defendants 4 to 7 in the suit. The interlocutory relief sought by the petitioners/plaintiffs in I.A.No.322 of 2012 in O.S.No.62 of 2012 is limited to respondents 1 to 3 herein/defendants 1 to 3. Defendants 1 to 3 are the officers of the State and by way of the I.A., the plaintiffs sought an ex parte temporary injunction against them. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing on behalf of these respondents stated that he had no objection to the Civil Revision Petition being disposed of with a direction to the Court below to adjudicate the I.A. on its merits expeditiously.

¶13

2. The civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of directing the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally, Khammam District, to take up I.A.No.322 of 2012 in O.S.No.62 of 2012 pending on his file and dispose of the same on merits after hearing both sides expeditiously and in any event, not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. CRP MP No.641 of 2013 shall stand dismissed in the light of this final order. No costs.

¶14

_________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶15

Date: 25^th February, 2013 Note: Issue C.C. in two days. //B.O.// Pab/Bsb

¶16

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶17

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.493 of 2013

¶18

25^th February, 2013

¶19

Pab/Bss

Maddipatla Chakravarthi, v. The Jr. Engineer, Irrigation Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maddipatla Chakravarthi, v. The Jr. Engineer, Irrigation Department

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

Stg Refractory Services Private Limited, Vs Andhra Cement Limited

S.Megha Mala Vs C.R. Biswal.

Maloth Bhjojya Vs Vunnam Laxmibai

v. venkata laxmi Vs M. Venkateswara Prasada REddy

M/s. Kotak Mahindra bank Ltd. Vs M/s. Golla Engineering Private Limited

M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. a Banking Vs M/s shalimar Agrotech Pvt. Ltd.