Dismissed
Mohammed Rafi v. Madanlal Attal
Telangana HCCRP/4625/2015
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
SRI JUSTSICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI CIVIL…
What the court decided
AI extract
SRI JUSTSICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI CIVIL…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTSICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4625 OF 2015
ORDER:
When the revision petition came up for hearing on 05.07.2016 under the caption ‘For Dismissal’, this Court passed the following order:
“Since there was no representation for the revision petitioner/2nd JDr on 27.06.2016 and as it was represented on that day by the learned counsel for the DHr that stay was granted considering the fact that the applications filed by the 2nd JDr for setting aside the ex parte decree and for condonation of the delay in seeking to set aside the ex parte decree are pending, but, subsequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed on 06.01.2016 and that the said order has become final and that, therefore, the revision petition has become infructuous, the revision was directed to be listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’.
On this day, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/2nd JDr seeks time. List on 12.07.2016 under the same caption.”
2. Today, the matter is listed under the caption
‘For Dismissal’. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/2nd judgment debtor does not dispute the fact that the application for condonation of delay was dismissed on 06.01.2016 and that the said order has become final.
3. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for both sides, and in view of the fact that the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, this Court finds that no cause survives for adjudication in this Civil Revision Petition and that therefore the same is liable for dismissal.
4. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision
Petition shall stand closed.
_____________________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J Date:12.07.2016 KH
M. SEETHARAMA MURTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court