Disposed

Smt. Sankuru Sakku Bai v. Smt. Bhushamma and 2 Others

Telangana HC10 Dec 2020CRP/1151/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The revision was filed challenging an interim order granting absolute stay on an eviction decree obtained against the petitioners. The High Court modified the stay order by directing the respondents to deposit Rs. 3,50,000 and monthly sums of Rs. 4,000 as security. The Court also directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously with mesne profits inquiries and the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Modified the stay order to condition it upon respondents depositing security and directing speedy disposal of mesne profits and pending appeal.

Smt. Sankuru Sakku Bai Vs Smt. Bhushamma and 2 Others — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1151 OF 2020

¶6

Petition Under Article 227 ol the Constitution of lndia against the Order dated 03-09-2020 in LA. No. 833 ot 2020 in A.S. No. 25 ol 2O2O on the file of the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court , Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt, Sankuru Sakku Bai, W/o S. Chandraiah, aged about 69 Occ. Household, Rl/o H.No.12-13-1161, Street No.1 1 , Tarnaka, Secunderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONERYRESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶10

AND

¶11

Smt. Bhushamma, W/o Sathaiah, aged about 68 years, Occ. Household , No 1213-1161 , Street No.1'1 , Tarnaka, Secunderabad.

¶12

Smt. [t4unni Bai, W/o S. Sathaiah, aged about 63 years, Occ. Household, Rlo 1213-1 161,Street No.1 1, Tarnaka, Secunderabad.

¶13

Shri S. Srinivas, S/o S. Sathaiah, aged about 43 years, Occ. Business, R/o^'12- 13-1 161 , Street No.11, Tarnaka, Secunderabad.

¶14

...RESPON DENTS/APPELLANTS/DE FENDANTS

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the operation of orders passed in I.A. No.833 of 2020 in A.S. No.25 o't 2020 on the file of I Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Secunderabad,^pending disposal of the revision in the interest of .lustice.

¶17

Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRI R. A. ACHUTHANAND

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI MANU

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA^RAO

¶21

CRP.No.115l of 2O2O

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manu, counsel appearing for respondents

¶24

This Revision is filed challenging the order dt.03.09.2020 in IA.No.B33 of 2O2O in AS.No.25 of 2O2O of the I Additional ChielJudge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶25

In the said order, the lower Court has granted absolute stay, pending disposal of the appeal, of decree for eviction and mesne prohts which was obtained by the plaintiff/petitioner in OS.No.924 ol 2015 from the Court of the III Senior Civil Judge, Ciry Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶26

Since the petition.rr had succeeded in the suit after a fight of 15 years, it would be unjust to allor,r, the respondents to squat on the prope rty without securing the interest ol the petitioner, if the petitioner were to ultimately succeed in the appeal AS.No.25 ol 2O2O liled by the respondents.

¶27

¶28

Therefore, I deem it appropriate to modify the order I dt.03.09.2O2O in IA.No.833 of 2O2O in AS.No.25 of 2O2O passed I by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courr, Secnnderabad. Therefore, the follorving order is passed 111 IA.No.B33 of 2O2O in AS.No.25 ol 2O2O:

¶29

¶30

" there shall be stay of eviction of t1-re appellants from the subject property pending disposal of AS.No.25 of 2O2O on condition ol the respondents depositing a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- before the Court below within a period of eight (08) weeks from today, and also subject to the condition of the respondents continuing to deposit monthly a sum of Rs.4,OOO/to the credit of the Appeal during the pendency of the appeal, the first of such deposit commencing from January, 2021 bcfore B,t ol every month. However, the petitioner shall not be permitted to r,r,ithdrar,v the same."

¶31

Since the petitioner as u.ell as two of the respondents, are senior citizens, the enquiry into the mesne profits is directed to be proceeded with by the trial Court as expeditiously as possible notwithstanding the pendency of AS.No.2S of 2O2O. Even the said appeal is directed to be decided within six months from the date ol receipt of a copy of this order by the I Additional Chiel Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶32

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.^No order as to costs

¶33

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

1 I

//TRUE COPY'

SD/- CH. VENKATESWARLU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \

¶38

SECTION OFFICER

¶39

The lAdditional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The lll Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶40

One CC to SRI R. A. ACHUTHANAND, Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to SRI MANU, Advocate [OpUC] s Two CD Copies

Av"r,\

HIGH COURT

DATED:101'1212020

1HE S Iq
c)/
1 21DEC2m
..:,
J"-
a.a T a.:;::

ORDER

CRP.No.1151 ot 2020

DISPOSING OF THE CRP

WITHOUT COSTS

eB$i.l )r- rq\t F^

Smt. Sankuru Sakku Bai v. Smt. Bhushamma and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sankuru Sakku Bai v. Smt. Bhushamma 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

Bekkari Sanjay Reddy Vs Anvith Avenue Flat Owners Welfare Association

Smt.G.Saraswathi Bai Vs Sri. Chiranjeevulu

Khadija Mohd Ahmed Vs Khaja Mohammed Tajuddin

E.J. David Vs Veera Reddy

E.J. David Vs the Additional Collector and 4 Others

Nooty Vasishta Venkateshwarlu Vs Smt Nooty Sindhu Sharma