Disposed

M/s. Sri Ramagiri Constructions Private Limited v. M/s. Galaxy Enterprises

Telangana HC19 Dec 2013CRP/4962/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 to revive a dismissed interim application regarding mining operations, the High Court directed the District Court to reopen the application for disposal on merits after hearing both parties within two months due to a subsequent grant of mining lease.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Court to reopen I.A.No.451 of 2012 for disposal on merits within two months; original C.R.P.M.P. No.6842 of 2013 stood disposed of as infructuous.

M/s. Sri Ramagiri Constructions Private Limited Vs M/s… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4962 of 2013

¶2

Dated 1 9 th December, 2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

M/s.Sri Ramagiri Constructions Private Limited

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

M/s.Galaxy Enterprises

¶8

…Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S.Ramachandra Rao for Sri K.R.Prabhakar

¶10

Counsel for the respondent: Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for revising order, dated 18.10.2012, in I.A.No.451 of 2012 in A.S.No.90 of 2012, on the file of the learned District Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

¶14

The facts leading to this revision petition need to be briefly stated. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.148 of 2006 in the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole for declaration of right over the suit schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The trial Court by its judgment, dated 31.07.2012, decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed A.S.No.90 of 2012 in the District Court, Prakasam District at Ongole. It has also filed I.A.No.451 of 2012 for stay/suspension of the judgment and decree of the lower Court.

¶15

At the hearing of the said application, a memo was filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner (respondent in the IA and the appeal)

¶16

stating that as no mining lease was granted in favour of his client, his client will not undertake mining operations in the suit schedule land. In view of the said memo, the lower appellate Court has dismissed the IA filed by the respondent.

¶17

The petitioner has filed this revision petition in view of the alleged subsequent event, namely, grant of mining lease in its favour by the competent authority i.e., Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad on 22.11.2013.

¶18

The petitioner has pleaded that in view of the changed circumstances, it cannot be made bound by the memo filed by its counsel before the lower appellate Court that it will not undertake mining operations and that therefore this Court’s intervention is needed for permitting it to carry on the mining operations.

¶19

Heard Sri S.Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶20

From the facts noted above, it is clear that the application filed for interim relief in the pending appeal by the respondent was dismissed on the memo filed on behalf of the petitioner. But for the said memo, the lower appellate Court would have disposed of I.A.No.451 of 2012 on merits. If the petitioner feels that in view of the subsequent event leading to grant of mining lease, it may not be made bound by the said memo, the appropriate course would be to direct re-opening of I.A.No.451 of 2012, so that both the parties will have an opportunity to put forth their respective pleas on merits in the interlocutory application filed by the respondent pending the appeal.

¶21

Therefore, the District Court, Prakasam District is directed to reopen I.A.No.451 of 2012 in A.S.No.90 of 2012 and dispose of the same on merits, after hearing both the parties, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

The civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the civil petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.6842 of

¶23

2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶24

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶25

19^th December, 2013 VGB

M/s. Sri Ramagiri Constructions Private Limited v. M/s. Galaxy Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sri Ramagiri Constructions Private Limited v. M/s. Galaxy Enterprises

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

Yenuganti Sivaramaiah Vs The Superintendent of Police

K.Chinnapa Reddy Vs Sri. T. Ajay Kumar

Meghana Travels, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh.

G. Satyanarayana Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K. Srinivas Vs The Regional Transport Officer, Mahaboobnagar.

Nagula Yugandhar Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh rep.by the Principal Secretary