The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition under Section 151 CPC for non-prosecution. The petitioner, despite the matter being listed twice, failed to appear or provide representation, leading the court to presume an intent not to pursue the appeal.
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE SIATE OF TETANGANA AT HYDERABAD
HiLH"BffililBT{,U,ffi .J*.
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
Petition filed under Ss6ti6n 115 of C.p.C.- aggrieved by the order Dated'19/06/2019 in E A rvo.y oi)ors in r."p rvo,'.ia o f 2014 ino.s No.10 0f 2009 0n the fite of the Court of the principai o,ltrli :ffi ruizamauao.
Between:
AND
.....PETITIONERS/ PETITTONERS/ D.Hrs
R/o. H. No. 6- 1 B-2 1B,New t"lGOrs Colony, Subh-ashnagar, Nizamabad, .....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/J/ D.rs
.RESPON DENT/ RESPONDENT/CLAIM PETITIONER
IA NO: 2 OF 2020 :-Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavlt filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY of all further proceedings in E.P No.38/2014 in U.S N0.10/2009 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge at Nizamabad.,pending disposal of the CRP.
IA NO: 1 OF 2020 :-Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may be pleased to Condone the delay of 342 days in filing the C.R.P.No. of2020 against the Order in EA No. 52 of 2019 inEP No. 38 of2014 in OS No' 10 of 2009 dated 19-6-2019 on the file of the court of the Principal District Judgeat Nizamabad'
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. BRAHMADANDIRAMESH (not being present)
Counsel for the Respondentsl NO1TO3 SRI V,RAVI KIRANRAO
Counsel for the RespondentiNO 4 SRI P.SHRARVAN KUMAR GOUD
The Court made the following: ORDER
TH EHON,BLESRI ]USTICET'VINOD KUMAR 6
ORDER:
Despitethe matter being paft-heardand listed under the caption 'for orders'on 12'04'2021' there was no representationon behalf of the petitioner,though the name of the learned counselfor the petitloneris shownin the cause list, and therefore,the cRp was directedto be listed today, i'e.23'04'ZOZI' under the caption'fordismissal''
Todayalso,though the matter is listed under the caption 'for dismissal',there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner' Hence' it ispresumedthat the petitionerdoes not intend to pursuethe CRP' Accordingly,the civil revisionpetitionis dismissed for non- prosecution,Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in
the lightof thisfinal order. No orderas to costs'
sd/-K.SAILESHI ASSISTANTIE GISTRAR L:10 //TRUECOPYI I SECTION OFFICER
To,
Vr'1
;,-.-
),
HIGHCOURT
DATED:23lO4/2021
ORDER
CRP.No.1267of 2020
o
t
oI
I :d-
DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION FOR NON PROSECUTION.
ry ?A 166
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the civil revision petition under Section 151 CPC shall be dismissed for non-prosecution when the petitioner fails to appear on the hearing date.
Kola.Ram -Gupta
Dayawar Kishan
Parshi shashank
Vadyala Chandrasekhar Reddy
Justice T. Vinod Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
