Allowed

Potluri Purna Chandra Rao v. Kollipara Pandu Ranga Rao ( died )

Telangana HC13 Jun 2017CRP/5999/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed the Civil Revision Petition by consent. The order set aside a lower court direction to mention plaintiff names in the cause title of the nephew's commission report. Direct -ed concerned parties to file an amended report under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC and expedited the trial.

What did the court decide?

The order directing inclusion of plaintiff names in the cause title of the commission report was set aside. The trial court was directed to entrust the warrant to the Commission for execution after re

Potluri Purna Chandra Rao Vs Kollipara… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.5 9 9 9 of 2 0 1 2

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the Order in I.A.No.508 of 2012 in O.S.No.35 of 2009 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, dismissing the application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and Order 22 Rule 3 and Section 151 of CPC requesting the Court to mention the names of plaintiff Nos. 3 to 6 in the cause title of the Order appointing an Advocate Commissioner, but the trial Court dismissed the petition assigning its own reasons.

¶5

During hearing, learned counsel for the respondents fairly conceded that it is only a mistake in filing a fair copy of the petition after making necessary amendments and gave consent to set aside the Order directing the Court to mention the names of plaintiff Nos. 3 to 6 in the cause title of the Order in the petition filed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, as impleading legal heirs in plaint is suffixed.

¶6

In view of the consent given by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the Order dt. 31.10.2012 in I.A.No.508 of 2012 in O.S.No.35 of 2009 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala. However, the petitioners are directed to file

¶7

¶8

a fresh copy of the petition after making necessary amendments by the counsel for the respondents. On filing fresh copy of the Petition, the trial Court is directed to entrust the warrant to the Commission for execution. It is needless to say that the trial Court shall expedite the trial of the matter after execution of the Warrant by the Commissioner, as suit is five years old.

¶9

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶10

in this case, shall stand dismissed.

¶11

____________________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J Date: 13-06-2017. eha

¶12

¶13

HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶14

CRP No.5 9 9 9 of 2 0 1 2

¶15

Dt. 13-06-2017

¶16

eha

Potluri Purna Chandra Rao v. Kollipara Pandu Ranga Rao ( died )

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Potluri Purna Chandra Rao v. Kollipara Pandu Ranga Rao ( died )

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

Kaipu Chennakesava Reddy, Vs Maddu Danaiah

Smt.K. Usha Rani Vs S.Satyanarayana Raju

Smt. Gunisetti Nagamani Vs Ganta Venkataraman [died]

M.G.Pappan, Vs B.Balaiah

Yella Krishna Reddy, Vs Challa Sambi Reddy

G. Anitha Sharma Vs G. Sudhakar Rao