Disposed

Nidumolu Rama Satyanarayana v. Nadamuri Ram Prasad

Telangana HC18 Mar 2014CMA/129/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate court disposed the appeal by granting liberty to the appellant to file an application before the lower court for reopening the civil miscellaneous application. The lower court had closed the application ex parte without merits. Liberty was granted to ensure due process followed. Appeal disposed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to appellant to file application for reopening the closed civil miscellaneous application before the lower court.

Nidumolu Rama Satyanarayana Vs Nadamuri Ram Prasad — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶3

C.M.A.No.129 OF 2014

¶4

Dated: 18.03.2014

¶5

Between: Nidumolu Rama Satyanarayana .. Appellant And Nandamuri Ram Prasad

¶6

.. Respondent

¶7

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶9

C.M.A.No.129 OF 2014

¶10

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)

¶11

This appeal is preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C. aggrieved by the order passed by the learned VII-Addl. District Judgecum-Family Court, Eluru, thereby closing I.A.No.516 of 2013 without passing any order on merits. It is pleaded that the appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.105 of 2013 and that he filed I.A.No.516 of 2013 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

¶12

Having regard to the allegation made in the appeal, this Court called for a report from the learned VII-Addl. District Judge-cum-Family Court, Eluru.

¶13

In compliance with the same, the learned VII Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Eluru, West Godavari District submitted his report which reveals that the defendant in the suit was set ex parte and as the ex parte evidence was being recorded, I.A.No.516 of 2013 filed for temporary injunction was closed after informing the counsel for the plaintiff the same across the bar.

¶14

However, it is represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that the defendant filed an application to set aside the ex parte order and in view of the pendency of the said application, the suit has not been disposed of so far.

¶15

Under the circumstances, the appellant/plaintiff is hereby

¶16

granted liberty to file an application before the Court below for reopening I.A.No.516 of 2013 in O.S.No.105 of 2013. If any such application is filed, the same shall be considered by the Court below following due process of law and an appropriate order shall be passed within four (4) weeks from the date of filing of the such application. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶17

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand closed.

¶18

______________ G.ROHINI, J

¶19

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 18.03.2014 Ivd

Nidumolu Rama Satyanarayana v. Nadamuri Ram Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nidumolu Rama Satyanarayana v. Nadamuri Ram Prasad

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

M/S Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd. Vs S.P.Agarwala and 3 Ors.

Y.v.Prasad Vs M/s Sandeep Seeds and Farms (P) Limited

D. Nooney Ranga Nayakulu Vs Atla Jayabharat Reddy

Dijaya corporation Berhad Vs M/s. Starlite Global Enterprise (India) Ltd.

Tammineni Naramma Vs B.N.R.Constructions

Vamsi Krishna Tamirisa Vs Smt. Namitha Gomatam Tamirisa