Dismissed

C.Ramesh Reddy v. Dr. Doodala Bharathi

Telangana HC20 Oct 2014CRP/2952/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition regarding mesne profits, the court held that when the underlying matter is pending before the Supreme Court with a status quo order, the trial court cannot take steps to circumvent or modify that order. The revision was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision No. 2952 of 2014 dismissed; miscellaneous petitions disposed of; no order as to costs.

C.Ramesh Reddy Vs Dr. Doodala Bharathi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2952 OF 2014

¶3

Dated:20-10-2014

¶4

Between: C. Ramesh Reddy and three others

¶5

... PETITIONERS

¶6

AND

¶7

Dr. Doodala Bharathi and four others

¶8

.. RESPONDENTS

¶9

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶10

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2952 OF 2014

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

The 1^st respondent filed O.S No.154 of 2004 in the Court of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioners (defendant Nos.5, 7 and 8) and respondent Nos.2 to 5 for the relief of cancellation of a sale deed, delivery of possession and recovery of mesne profits. The suit was decreed on 30-052011. I.A No.590 of 2011 was filed before the trial Court for ascertainment of the mesne profits. The trial Court passed an order dated

¶13

21-02-2012 in relation to mesne profits.

¶14

The aggrieved parties filed CCCA No. 152 of 2011 against the decree and C.R.P No.1919 of 2012 against the order in I.A No. 590 of 2011. The appeal as well as the C.R.P were allowed.

¶15

The matter was carried to the Supreme Court by the 1^st respondent. It is stated that though as many as four interlocutory applications were filed before the Supreme Court, orders were passed only in two of them.

¶16

The petitioners filed I.A No.982 of 2012 before the trial Court with a prayer to permit them to withdraw the mesne profits that were deposited in compliance with the order in I.A No.590 of 2011 and interim order passed by this Court in C.R.P No. 1919 of 2012. The application was opposed by the 1^st respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A through order dated 03-06-2014. Hence, this revision.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

¶18

It is not in dispute that the special leave petitions filed by the 1^st respondent against the judgments in the CCCA and the CRP are pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that an order of status quo was passed on 08-02-2013. The petitioner intends to give a restricted interpretation as to the scope of the order passed by the Supreme Court.

¶19

Once the entire matter is pending before the Supreme Court and an order of status quo is operating, the question of trail Court taking any steps to circumvent the order in any manner does not arise. Even if according to the petitioner, there is no impediment for withdrawal of the amount, the orders in this behalf must be obtained by the Supreme Court itself.

¶20

The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶22

20-10-2014 ks

C.Ramesh Reddy v. Dr. Doodala Bharathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Ramesh Reddy v. Dr. Doodala Bharathi

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

V.Srinivas Rao Vs Smt.Vuddanti Lakshmi

Mohd. Fakhruddin Vs The Chief Executive Officer

The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Vs Goverdhan

Ranjeet Singh Khanuja Vs Omprakash Purohit

Gummadi Padmavathi Vs G Padma

Sri Jwalads Hansraj (died Per L.Rs) Vs Smt. Aruna Ben