Allowed

G.M. khan , Pasha Bhai , Alijony Miya v. Jaladi Veerabhadra Rao

Telangana HC29 Oct 2014CCCA/40/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate court quashed two interim orders dismissing CPC applications for final decree execution in a partition suit. Noting pending rectification applications and mutual agreement to remand, the court avoided deciding merits, setting aside the lower orders and directing their re-disposal within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Set aside orders dated 20-01-2014 and 24-02-2014; remand for disposal of applications under Order XX Rule 8 CPC in accordance with preliminary decree within four weeks.

G.M. khan , Pasha Bhai , Alijony Miya Vs Jaladi Veerabhadra Rao — Partition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

C.C.C.A.Nos.40 and 45 of 2014

¶3

Date: 29-10-2014

¶4

Between:

¶5

G.M. Khan @ Pasha Bhai @ Alijony Miya

¶6

.. Appellant

¶7

AND

¶8

Jaladi Veerabhadra Rao and others

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶11

C.C.C.A.Nos.40 and 45 of 2014 COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶12

C.C.C.A.No.40 of 2014 is filed against the order dated 2001-2014 in I.A.No.593 of 2012 in O.S.No.309 of 1986 passed by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowing the application filed under Order XX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed for passing of final decree, wherein an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for division of Plot-A of the suit schedule property earmarked for the 1^st defendant into five equal shares for allotting one such share to the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 and 6.

¶13

C.C.C.A.No.45 of 2014 is filed against the order dated 2402-2014 in I.A.No.591 of 2012 in O.S.No.309 of 1986 passed by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowing the application filed under Order XX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure for passing final decree in respect of allotment of B, C and E shares of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and

¶14

defendants 2 to 4 and 6.

¶15

This Court, on 24-04-2014 granted interim stay of further proceedings in I.A.No.593 of 2012 in O.S.No.309 of 1986 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, observing that the final decree passed by the Court below is contrary to the prayer in I.A.No.593 of 2012 and this Court also granted interim stay of further proceedings in I.A.No.591 of 2012 in O.S.No.309 of 1986. Thereafter, respective Vacate Stay Petitions in CCCAMP.No.353 of 2014 in CCCA.No.40 of 2014 and CCCAMP.No.350 of 2014 in CCCA.No.45 of 2014 are filed seeking vacation of the interim stay granted on 24-04-2014. When the vacate stay petitions have come up for hearing, both the counsel in both the appeals insisted for disposal of the appeals since a small issue is involved in both the appeals and also agreed for remanding the matter to the Court below, as the respondents 1 to 3 have already filed an application before the Court below for correction of the mistake crept in by the Court below in disposing of I.A.No.593 of 2012 and I.A.No.591 of 2012, stating that the relief prayed in one application is granted in another application. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the objection raised by the appellant is not considered by the Court below while passing the impugned orders.

¶16

Since both the applications are pending for rectification of the mistake committed by the Court below and since both the counsel have agreed for remanding the matter, I am not going into the merits of the appeals.

¶17

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the order dated 20-01-2014 in I.A.No.593 of 2012 in O.S.No.309 of 1986 and the order dated 24-02-2014 in I.A.No.591

¶18

of 2012 in O.S.No.309 of 1986 passed by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad are set aside. The learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is directed to dispose of the aforesaid applications in terms of the preliminary decree dated 28-01-1988 in O.S.No.309 of 1986, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶19

Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶20

_____________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

¶21

Date: 29-10-2014

¶22

Ksn

G.M. khan , Pasha Bhai , Alijony Miya v. Jaladi Veerabhadra Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.M. khan , Pasha Bhai , Alijony Miya v. Jaladi Veerabhadra Rao

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

Vibrant Greentech Limited (Vgl) Vs -

Hyderabad Chemicals Umited (Hcl) Vs -

Surisetty Sreenivasulu Vs Surisetty Raghavender

M/s Air Liquide Engineering India Private Limited, Vs -

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Akula Gurramma

G. Sai Nagadeep Vs Gopagoni Sreehari