The petition was dismissed as unauthorized execution of decree had already taken place with possession delivered and recorded, though petitioners retained option to approach appropriate forum.
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 JUSTI CE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.3 1 3 5 of 2 0 1 1
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of CPC is filed challenging the Order dt. 03.11.2010 in CMA No.545 of 2009 passed by I Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.
Sri Venkata Raghu Ramulu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Sameer Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent No.1, represented that the Decree in O.S.No.2412 of 2005 was executed in EP No.861 of 2006 and accordingly, possession of the property was delivered in pursuance of the Decree and delivery was also recorded and therefore, there is nothing to be adjudicated by this Court in the present Revision.
Recording the said submission, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, leaving it open to the petitioners to redress their claim in an appropriate Court.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case, shall stand dismissed.
____________________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J Date: 16-06-2017. eha
2
HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CRP No.3 1 3 5 of 2 0 1 1
Dt. 16-06-2017
eha
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
