Allowed

Nirmala Vimala v. To Whomsoever, It May Concern

Telangana HC24 Apr 2014CMA/682/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant against an order dated 06.06.2007. The appeal was disposed of between the appellant and respondent No.2 based on a joint memo of compromise entered into by them, while it was dismissed regarding respondent No.3 due to unknown whereabouts.

What did the court decide?

The civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed and disposed of between the appellant and respondent No.2 based on the joint memo of compromise; dismissed against respondent No.3; interim order vacated; rel

Nirmala Vimala Vs To Whomsoever, It May… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.M.A.M.P.No.609 of 2014 in/and C.M.A.No.682 of 2007

¶2

Dated: 24.04.2014

Between:

Nirmala Vimala

.. Appellant

and

Smt. N. Seethakumari and others.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the appellant: Mr. K. Rathangapani Reddy

¶10

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Mr. M.M.M. Srinivasa Rao for Mr. Kowturu Vinaya Kumar

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

COMMON ORDER:

¶13

The civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against order and decree dated 06.06.2007 in S.O.P.No.1153 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Khammam.

¶14

The appellant and respondent No.2 filed C.M.A.M.P.No.609 of 2014 with a prayer to pass judgment and decree in terms of the compromise entered into between them. Along with this application, the appellant and respondent No.2 filed a joint memo of compromise, wherein they have agreed to settle the dispute as per the terms of memo of compromise.

¶15

At the hearing, Mr. K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, stated that as the whereabouts of respondent No.3, who is the son of respondent No.2, are not known, the appeal may be dismissed against him.

¶16

The appellant and respondent No.2 are personally present and both of them have informed the Court that they have entered into compromise out of their free will and consent.

¶17

In the light of the above, C.M.A.M.P.No.609 of 2014 is allowed. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly disposed of between the appellant and respondent No.2 in terms of the joint memo of compromise and dismissed qua respondent No.3.

¶18

The Registry shall draw the decree in terms of the joint memo of compromise.

¶19

As a sequel to disposal of the civil miscellaneous appeal, interim order dated 07.09.2007, which was extended on 06.11.2007, is vacated and C.M.A.M.P.Nos.1618 and 2366 of 2007 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

_________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24^th April, 2014 IBL

Nirmala Vimala v. To Whomsoever, It May Concern

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala Vimala v. To Whomsoever, It May Concern

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

The Official Liquidator Vs DT.01-10-2012 to 31-03-2013.

The Official Liquidator Vs DT.01-10-2012 to 31-03-2013.

The Official Liquidator Vs DT.01-10-2012 to 31-03-2013.

Vakity Sushma Vs Sri Ajith Kumar Nair

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Vs Loyola Academy

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Having its Office Vs Loyola Academy (a Society Registeredf Under Andhra