Dismissed

Smt. G.Prabhavathi, W/o Srinivas v. Smt. Boyini Sarojini Dasaradha Ram

Telangana HC3 Jan 2014WP/315/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged arbitrary non-consideration of her stay application in original civil suit. Court noted she was not a party to the disposed original suit and dismissed the writ petition, though she could pursue pending applications before the District Judge.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. No costs. Petitioner advised to pursue pending applications before District Judge.

Smt. G.Prabhavathi, W/o Srinivas Vs Smt. Boyini… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.315 OF 2014

¶4

Dated: 03.01.2014

¶5

Between: Smt. G.Prabhavathi .. Petitioner And Smt. Boyina Sarojini Dasaradha Ram, and nine others

¶6

.. Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.315 OF 2014

¶9

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

¶10

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged non-consideration of the application [I.A.(SR) No.6986/2013] filed by the petitioner on 31.12.2013 for a direction not to interfere with her possession till disposal of I.A.No.2138/2013 in L.G.O.P. No.623/2001 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar, is arbitrary and illegal.

¶11

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 8 to 10.

¶12

It is pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner who is a third-party to the proceedings in L.G.O.P. No.623/2001 filed I.A. No.2138/2013 under Order XX1 Rule 98 and 99 of C.P.C. for determination of her rights in respect of the application schedule property and pending the said application she filed I.A. (SR) No.6986/2013 seeking stay of dispossession.

¶13

As could be seen from the material available on record,

¶14

L.G.O.P. No.623/2001 was allowed partly by order dated 08.10.2012. It appears that the applicant in L.G.O.P.No.623/2001 / the respondent No.1 herein filed I.A.No.1243/2013 for delivery of possession in terms of the order in L.G.O.P. No.623/2001 and the same is yet to be heard. Be that as it may, having regard to the admitted fact that the writ petitioner is not a party to L.G.O.P.No.623/2001 which was disposed of on 08.10.2012, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition and grant the relief as prayed for.

¶15

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to pursue the applications stated to have been filed before the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in I.A. No.1243/2013 and it is open to the Court to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶16

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶17

______________ G. ROHINI, J

¶18

_________________________ T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

¶19

Date: 03.01.2014 MVA

Smt. G.Prabhavathi, W/o Srinivas v. Smt. Boyini Sarojini Dasaradha Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. G.Prabhavathi, W/o Srinivas v. Smt. Boyini Sarojini Dasaradha Ram

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

Y. Hema Reddy Vs M/s. Andhra Bank, (a government of India Undertaking)

Y.Hema Reddy, Y.Ramachandra Reddy Vs M/s.Andhra Bank, ( a Government of India Undertaking)

M/s. Ashomech, Vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Ragidi Laxma Reddy, Vs Hdfc Bank

Sangam Satish, Vs Special Court (Ii Court) A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition)

Mr.a.Krishna Reddy, Vs The Authorised Officer