Allowed

P.V. Ramakrishnam Raju v. M/s. Vignan Constructions and 2 others

Telangana HC7 Aug 2019AS/335/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of an interlocutory application under Section 148 and 151 CPC. The Court, noting that arguments in the original suit were completed, granted two months additional time to the lower court for disposal. The application was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Two months time granted to the Court below (Xl Addl. District Judge, Medchal) for disposal of O.S. No. 1357 of 2014.

P.V. Ramakrishnam Raju Vs M/s. Vignan… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

[^25e41

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY

|.A.NO.2 0F 2021

AS NO: 335 OF 2019

Between:

P.V. Ramakrishnam Raju, S/o. Sri Suryanarayanaraju,

¶12

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF

¶13

AND

¶14

M/s. Vignan Constructions, Rep. by its proprietor Laxman B Binny, S/o. Late Sri Balaiah, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.48-401/2, Ganesh Nagar, Chintal, Hyderabad.

¶15

A.Suresh, S/o.Sri A. Saibanna,

¶16

Sudha Rani, Wo. Laxman B Binny,

¶17

... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/ DEFENDANTS

¶18

Application under Section 148 read with Section 1S1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the Letter dated. 25.08.2021 vide Dis No.404 of 2021 addressed by the Xl Addl. District Judge, (FTC) Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, and forwarded by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District to extent the time granted on 07-08-2019 in A.S.No.335 of 2019 for four months to dispose of AS.No.335 of 2019 on the file of the Xl Addl. District Judge, (FTC) Medchal, Ranga Reddy District

¶19

The application coming^{on for hearing,upon perusing the Letter} filed by the Xl Additional District^{Judge, (FTC) Medchal,Ranga} Reddy District in support^thereof

¶20

The Court made the following^ORDER:

¶21

"This lnterlocutory Application is listed basing on^{the letter dated} 31.O8.2021by the learned^{Principal DistrictJudge, Ranga Reddy,while} forwarding the letter dated^{25.08.2021 of the learned Xl Additional} District Judge, Medchal,^{Ranga Reddy.}

¶22

It is submitted by the learned^{counsel on both sides that the} arguments of the^{plaintiffs completedin the original Suit and that today} the matter is listed^{for reply arguments.}

¶23

Therefore, considering the request^{made by the learned Presiding} officer through the^{letter dated 25.08.2021and also submissionsmade} by the learned counsel, on^{either side, two monthstime is granted to the} Court below for disposal of^{O.S No.1357of 2014}

¶24

Petition is accordingly allowed.

¶25

Sd/-B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// - .l ".".

¶26

.l ".".

¶27

SECTION OFFICER

¶28

To,

¶29

1 . The Principal District and^{Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District} 2 . The Xl Additional District Judge,^{(FTC) Medchal, Ranga Reddy} District

¶30

One CC to Sri V Hari^{Haran, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶31

One CC to Sri P.James,^{Advocate[OPUC]}

¶32

Two CD Copies

PIP r Cf

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910112023

ORDER

I.A.NO.2 0F 2021 IN AS.No.335 of 2019

¶38

d 21 tl!{ ?:'in
/.
i-'..t '

¶39

ALLOWING THE^I.A.

¶40

P.V. Ramakrishnam Raju v. M/s. Vignan Constructions and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.V. Ramakrishnam Raju v. M/s. Vignan Constructions and 2 others

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

Sayannagari Mallesham Vs Marka Satheesh Kumar

Donthi Laxma Goud (Died)and 7 Others Vs Thegulla Anja Goud

Velmela Kista Reddy, Vs Smt. Pullaiahgari Manemma

Sri M.A. Mujeeb Vs Sri Habeeb Alladin and 12 Others

M/s. Global Drugs (P) Limited Vs No Respondent

Durgam Kishtaiah Vs Golle Pullaiah