Dismissed

Palle Padma, Hyderabad Dist v. Sri Balaji Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Medchal Dist and 4

Telangana HC10 Dec 2021CMA/202/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Telangana dismissed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 26 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 for non-prosecution due to the appellant's continuous absence and failure to serve notice on respondents.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution pending miscellaneous applications stand closed.

Palle Padma, Hyderabad Dist Vs Sri Balaji… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURTfOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ON'

¶3

r H E H o N o u RA B L E s R r r r?Tiiut I]r. N KArE s H wA RA R E D D y

¶4

c.M A. NO:2 2 F2 17

¶5

Appeal under Section Bg of A.p Charitable and Hindu Religious lnstitutions and Endowments Act, 19g7 against the JudgmenU decree in OA No.210t2O1O (otd O.A.No.93/2004) dated 2gt1jt2O16 on the file of the Court of the Telangana Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad.

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

i#itfr L?,',{:?#€i:H[,:;jll.ig:,.lBJo"?ji'.iecc Housewire, Rt o H No 7.2. i 2-

¶8

...APPELLANT/1sr RESPONDENT AND

¶9

'f, ,?,0'.11:l';v:il[1:?%:,f "'-Bl,Lr,fi^{Hi';ig,i[y,,1!'.:;T:,Ti::."."",}

¶10

:i[frAE#r'na:;[:ci::i,,iH"*trHtiffi^{:]]#"ni'isiil]i,:,.H",}

¶11

;. $fr*[t:+'lr+n u#qreguilhi#gs',-tiw

¶12

¶13

CM AMP. NO:3 44 0F 2017

¶14

petition under section '151 0f cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith ,n" *,nn Court may be pleased to stay of the operation of the order dated 29.11 .20.,,, in oA No 210 of 2o1o told oA No.93/2oo4l on the file of the Terangana stutu enoo6 the petitoner n",.",n ,o,,11j'::JJ:T: :::'",,*J ;l'U:,:':::.i:T; :J sy Nos 197 & 2'1 1' situated at Keesara Virage, Keesara Gram panchayat, Keesara Mandal, Medchal District 7.S.,

¶15

For the Appe|Iant : SRI GADE VENKATESWARA RAo, Advocate (not present) For the Respondent No.1 : SRI SUDARSHAN REDD Y DUDDUGUNTA, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 ; NONE APPEARED

¶16

The Court detjvered the following; JUDGMENT

¶17

HONOUR IBLE SRI^{JUSTICE A.VENXATESHWARAREDDY}

¶18

CIVI ,-MISCELLANEOUS^{APPEAL NO.2O2q]:JIO17}

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Learn,'<1 counsel^{for theappellantcalledabsent'} Though notic:^{was orderedto respondent Nos 2 to l)' no report is} filed. Even^{r ,Ir the last date of hearing i'e' on 27 ' I 0'2021'there} was no repre:^{€:ntationon behalf of the appellant'Ha'ving regard to} the fact that^{the appellant remained absentcontinltouslyand he} failed to takt out^{noticeof the respondents,ifind n': merit to} adjourn the n^€ttter.

¶21

Accordi rglY,^the appeal is dismissed^{ford':far-rltlor} non-prosecut³ⁿ Pending miscellaneous^{applications, if any, shall}

stand closed.

..,IP,SHTA?$RTR

,TRUE^COPY'

lab SECTION^OFFICER

i, S:"#^{l: €r :,*!#tT;;;"e"'i:frd;ss'*1"} 4 Two CD^CoPies S. One^{SPare CoP I} Ki.

bi>

HIGH COURT

DATEDl1o11212021

JUDGMENT

z{t ;ru S rrlT€ a;
llao"
!r<
1$ irtl't 2022
.:<br>

¶33

CMA.No'202^{of 2017}

¶34

DISMISSING^{THEC14A FOR NON'PROSECUTION} WITHOUT^COSTS.

¶35

)}cx

Palle Padma, Hyderabad Dist v. Sri Balaji Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Medchal Dist and 4

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palle Padma, Hyderabad Dist v. Sri Balaji Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Medchal Dist and 4

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vancha Shoba Rani Vs S Aruna

Gorantla , Polasa Divyasree Vs Gorantla , Polasa Vinod Kumar

Batula Lavanya Vs Batula Rupesh

Vadde Varalaxmi Vs Gandham Veerabhadram

M. Laxmi Vs Sri Mallepula Ramesh Goud

Middela Pujitha Vs Akkinapally Kiran Kumar