Allowed

Pingle Vasudeva Reddy v. Chikkala Chowdarayya

Telangana HC17 Mar 2021CMA/100/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court vacated an interim order dated 19.02.2021 passed in I.A. No. 2 of 2021 in the underlying CMA due to lack of knowledge of a reasoned order. The court allowed the fresh application and directed the lower court to decide pending interlocutory proceedings within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The interim order of 19.02.2021 in I.A. No. 2 of 2021 is vacated. The application under Section 151 CPC is allowed. The lower court to decide the pending I.A. within six weeks.

Pingle Vasudeva Reddy Vs Chikkala Chowdarayya — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF IVIARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M,S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

LA.NO: 3 OF 2021

¶7

INiAND

¶8

C.M.A. NO: 100 OF 2021

¶9

Between:

¶10

Pingle Vasudeva Reddy, S/o Pingle Joga Reddy Occupation^{Business,Resident} of H No. 1245, Flat No. F-1 , Jyothi Venkatadri^{Apartments, Road No.12, Jubilee} Hill, Hyderabad -- 500033

¶11

lr,4/s Rudra lnfrastructure, having its office at^{H.No.10-1/22, SurveyNos. 100 and} '109, Golden tr/ile Colony, Kokapet Village, Gandipet lt4andal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.^{Representedby its lt4anagingPartnerSri GangidiOm} Prakash Reddy, S/o Sri Gangidi^{NarshimaReddy, Occupation.Business.} R/o.H.No. 4-117, Kokapet Gandipet^{lvlandal,Ranga Reddy District, Telangana} State.

¶12

...APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶13

AND

¶14

Chikkala Chowdarayya,^{S/o Chikkala Thamma Naidu, Resident of H. No 2-2-4' Sri} Nagar, Janmabhoomi Park^{West Road, beside Sai Baba Temple, Kakinada,East} Goiavari District, Andhra^{Pradesh - 533003 representedby GPA Holder Sri VATTIKUTI} ARBAIAH S/o Late Sri^{VATTIKUTI SRI RAIVULU,aged about 55 years, occ.Business.} Ri H.No.8-3-678/18, Pragathi^{Nagar,Yousufguda, Hyderabad 500045}

¶15

...RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

¶16

lA NO: 3 OF 2021

¶17

Between:

¶18

chikkala chowdarayya,^{S/o Chikkala Thamma Naidu, Resident of H. No 2-2-4,Sri} Nagar, Janmabhoomj^{park west Road, besidesai Baba Temple, Kakinada, East} . Goiavari District, Andhra^{Pradesh - 533003 representedby GPA Holder_SriVaTTIKUTI} ABBAIAH S/o Late Sri^{VATTIKUTI SRI RAIVULU,aged about 55 years, occ.Business.} R/ H.No.8-3-678/18,^{Pragathi Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad 5}

¶19

......Petitioner/ ResPondent

¶20

And

¶21

l.PingleVasudevaReddy,S/oPingleJogaReddyoccupationBusiness-,-Resident of [ ruo. 1245,^{Flat ruo. f-t, Jyothi Venkatadri Apartments, Road No. 12, Jubilee} Hill, Hyderabad^-- 500033

¶22

Ir//s Rudra lnfrastructure,^{having its office at H.No.10-'1/22,Survey Nos 100 and} - f OS, Golden Ir/ile Colony,^{Koiapet Village' Gandipet Mandal'-Ranga Reddy} Distiict, Telangana state,^{Representedby its [Vlanaging Partner sri Gangidiom} prakas'h Redly, S/o Sri Gangidi Narshima Reddy, occupation. _Business. R/o.H.No.4-llT,KokapetGandipetlrilandal'RangaReddyDistrict,Telangana State.

¶23

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶24

Petition under section^{151 of cPCpraying that in the circumstances statedin} the accompanying^{affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon',blecourt maybe}

¶25

pleased to vacate the interim order dated 19.O2.2O21 passed in LA.No.2 of 2021 in CMA No.100 of 2021, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶26

Forthe Appellant: SRI E.MADAN MOHAN RAO, Advocate

¶27

For the Respondents : SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, Advocate

¶28

The Court delivered the following: JUDGT\4ENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶30

AND

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

I.A.No.3 of 202I

in/and

C.M.A.No.100 of 20?1

JUDGM.ENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao)

¶36

Heard Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, leaned counsel for appellants and Sri V.Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent.

¶37

Sri V.Srinivas, leamed counsel for respondent has placed a detailed docket order dtJ}-02-2021, which indicated that reasons have been given by the Court below while granting ad interim injunction

¶38

exparte on10-02-2021 inLA.No.73 of 2021 inO.S.No.68 of 2021.

¶39

In view of the same, and since we had earlier granted interim suspension on the basis of a decretal order dt.10-02-2021, without having knowledge of the reasoned order passed by the Court below on 10-02-2021, we vacate the order dr.l9-02-2021 in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in C.M.A.No. 100 of 2021 . Accordingly,, LA.No.3 of 202t is allowed.

¶40

Since it is now stated that even appellants have filed counteraffidavits in I.A.No.73 0f 2021 in o.S.No.68 0f^{2021,the court below} is directed to hear both sides and decide the said I.A.^{withinsix (06)} weeks.

¶41

)..

¶42

s. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal^{is disposedof accordingly.No}

¶43

costs.

¶44

o. As a sequel, miscellaneous^{petitionspending,} if^{any, shall stand}

¶45

closed.

¶46

¶47

Sd/-K.SREENIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶48

¶49

The Hon'ble Principal^{Districtand Sessions Judge,RRDistrict at L B'Nagar'}

¶50

The V Additional^{District and Sessions Judge,RRDistrict at L.B.Nagar'}

¶51

One CC to Sri E.Madan^{lVlohanRao, Advocate (OPUC)}

¶52

One CC to Sri Vedula Srinivas,^{Advocate (OPUC)}

¶53

Two CD Copies

Ki.

HIGH^COURT

DATED:17l03/2021

H E s IA /t..
5,
o 2 5 lqAH 2021 r)z
il
* *

¶60

JUDGMENT

¶61

¶62

|.A.NO.3^{0F 2021} IN/AND CMA.No.100^{of 2021}

¶63

¶64

DISPOSTNG^{OF THE CMA'}

¶65

\ ^,/
fr

Pingle Vasudeva Reddy v. Chikkala Chowdarayya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pingle Vasudeva Reddy v. Chikkala Chowdarayya

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

Syed Dawood Kaif Vs The State of Telangana

Colonial Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Narayanam Nageswar Rao

Cheruku Swamy Nathan Vs Venisetty Rathnam and 5 others

Sri Gavva Amarender Reddy Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Mr. Y. Ravichand Vs The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others

Sahjanand Singh Vs The State of Telangana and Another