Disposed

Mullaguri Mayur v. Sathu Anusooja

Telangana HC14 Aug 2014CRP/1066/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the lower court to dispose of pending interlocutory applications in a partition suit within two months, holding that their non-disposal had stalled proceedings despite related suits being heard elsewhere. The revision petitions stood disposed as a consequence.

What did the court decide?

Direct the lower court to dispose of the petitioners' interlocutory applications within two months after hearing both sides.

Mullaguri Mayur Vs Sathu Anusooja — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.1045, 1055, 1065, 1066, 1073 & 1080 of 2014

¶2

Dated 1 4 th August, 2014

¶3

Between:

¶4

Mullaguri Mayur

¶5

…Petitioner (C.R.P.No.1045 of 2014)

¶6

And

¶7

Sathu Anusooja and others

¶8

…Respondents (C.R.P.No.1045 of 2014)

¶9

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri R.K.Suri

¶10

Counsel for the respondent: ----

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

COMMON ORDER:

¶13

These civil revision petitions arise out of a common suit, namely, O.S.No.14 of 1992, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

Briefly stated, the petitioners, who are three in number, filed two revision petitions each against non-disposal of two IAs each filed by them by the lower Court. They have filed one set of IAs for their impleadment in the suit filed by respondent No.1 for partition against respondent Nos.2 to 6 and also filed another set of IAs raising objections to the appointment of Advocate Commissioner in the suit.

¶15

The innocuous grievance of the petitioners is that the lower Court is not disposing of their IAs, as a result of which, further proceedings in the present suit are stalled, while the comprehensive suits filed by them for declaration of title and other allied reliefs are being proceeded with by another Court. On these facts, the petitioners

¶16

requested for a direction to the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District to dispose of their IAs filed in the suit.

¶17

As I find legitimacy in the grievance of the petitioners, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the two IAs filed by each of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible after hearing both sides and not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

Subject to the above direction, the civil revision petitions shall stand disposed of.

¶19

As a sequel to disposal of the civil revision petitions, pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶21

14^th August, 2014 VGB

Mullaguri Mayur v. Sathu Anusooja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mullaguri Mayur v. Sathu Anusooja

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

Shaik Ghousia Begum, Vs Bank of Baroda

T.Pramod Kumar Goud, Vs Smt. M.Vijayalakshmi , Sridevi

The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Vs Sri D. Venkat Reddy

Kothapalli Issac Vs B Ramesh Babu

Nalabotu Punnaiah, Vs Sri G. Levi

Potluri Rambabu, Vs Sathu Anusooja