The court held that after the trial court disposed of O.P.No. 8 of 2006 on 11.06.2015 during the pendency of the revision, the petition became infructuous and was dismissed with no order as to costs.
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs.
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.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2930 of 2013
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition under Section 227 of the
Constitution of India is filed challenging the Order dt.07.03.2013 in I.A.No.201 of 2013 in O.P.No.8 of 2006 passed by the Senior Civil
Judge, Tanuku dismissing the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking leave to amend the petition.
But, during the pendency of this petition, as there was no stay, O.P.No. 8 of 2006 was disposed of by the trial Court on 11.06.2015. As the O.P. itself was disposed of on 11.06.2015, the petition has become infructuous and dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J
Date:26-07-2017 Ccm
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2930 of 2013
Date:26.07.2017
ccm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Civil Revision Petition filed to challenge an order dismissing an amendment application is maintainable after the main O.P. has been disposed of during pendency.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
