Partly allowed

Gunisetty Chandramouli v. Mukkamala Srinivasa Vasudeva Sharma

Telangana HC24 Jul 2015CRP/1651/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision under Article 227 challenged an order directing the petitioner-defendant to furnish third party security. The High Court set aside the order for being erroneous and directed the petitioner to furnish security of his own to the satisfaction of the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Order of lower court set aside; petitioner directed to furnish security within two months; no costs.

Gunisetty Chandramouli Vs Mukkamala… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA

¶2

PRADESH

¶3

¶4

Civil Revision Petition No.1651 of 2015

¶5

Between:

¶6

Gunisetty Chandramouli

¶7

… Respondent/Defendant/Petitioner

¶8

and

¶9

Mukkamala Srinivasa Vasudeva Sharma.

¶10

… Petitioner/Plaintiff/Respondent

¶11

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 24.07.2015.

¶12

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶14

1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No

¶15

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

¶16

2 Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reports/Journals

¶17

Yes/No

¶18

3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No see the fair copy of the Judgment?

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶20

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1651 of 2015

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order passed by the I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in I.A. No.264 of 2015 in O.S. No.204 of 2015 dated 07.04.2015.

¶23

I.A. No.264 of 2015 was filed under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. to direct the respondent-defendant to furnish security for the suit amount of Rs.13,16,700/- with interest and costs. By its order dated 07.04.2015, the Court below directed the petitioner-defendant to furnish third party security for the suit amount of Rs.13,16,700/-.

¶24

Sri M. Karuna Sagar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit, not without justification, that, even though the prayer in the I.A. was for the petitioner to furnish security, the Court below had erred in directing him to furnish third party security. Learned Counsel would fairly state that the petitioner was ready to furnish security for the aforesaid amount; and that interference is required only because the Court below had directed him to furnish third party security.

¶25

Sri A.S.C. Bose, Learned Counsel for the respondent, would fairly state that, in as much as the request of the respondent-plaintiff before the Court below was only to direct the petitioner to provide security, it would suffice if the order of the Court below is modified; and, instead of third party security, the petitioner is directed to furnish security for the suit amount.

¶26

The order of the Court below is set aside. The petitioner shall, within two months from today, furnish security to the satisfaction of the Court below. The petitioner shall not alienate or create third party

¶27

rights on the property, till he furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Court below. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.

¶28

_______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J

¶29

Date: 24.07.2015 MRKR

Gunisetty Chandramouli v. Mukkamala Srinivasa Vasudeva Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunisetty Chandramouli v. Mukkamala Srinivasa Vasudeva Sharma

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

M a Reddy [Died] Vs Kampa Pydireddy

Buddaraju Radha Krishnavaram Vs Nadupuri Apparao

Korrai Govinda Rao Vs Sri Korrai ramana

M.Narasinha Swamy Vs M/s.Siva Sivani Educational Institutions Society

Yekkala Satyanarayana, Vs Pyla Parvathi

Yekkala Satyanarayana, Vs Pyla Parvathi