Dismissed

N. Hemalatha and another v. S.Madhava Rao and 10 others

Telangana HC8 Apr 2021CRP/216/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order refusing to send a document to the Government Security Press for stamp verification. The Court found the suit was from 2003 and the application belatedly filed in 2020, noting no merit.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed.

N. Hemalatha and another Vs S.Madhava Rao and 10 others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA^RAM

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PE TITION NO: 216 OF 2020

¶6

(Petition Under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia against the orders and Decree made in 1.A.No.176 of 2019^{in O.S.No.23 of 2003dated 07.01 2020 on the file} of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge,^Warangal)

¶7

Between:

¶8

N. Hemalatha, W/o. N.V.Jayachander,^{Aged about 35 years, Occ' Employee,} Fl/o. H.No. 1-8-77, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda.

¶9

N. Javachandar, S/o. Not Known,^{Aged about 62 years, Occ'Retd. Employee'} R/o. H.No. 1-B-77, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda.

¶10

...pETlTlONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . S.Madhava Rao S/o. Ram Chandraiah, Aged about 61 years, Occ. Retd. Employee, Fl/o. Girmalipet, Warangal,^{Prese{ly Reildingat Flat No. 210'} TirLimdla Residential Complex,^{Yousufguda, Check Post' Hyderabad.}

¶13

Vanga Raghava Reddy^(Died),

¶14

Vanla Koirurareddy 1OieO1,^{per L.Rs. RespondentsNo 8 to 11.}

¶15

Som-ineni Aruna, Wlo. Narsaiah, Aged 37^{years, Occ. Household'Rl/o.Rampur} Villaqe, Dharmasagar lVandal, Warangal.

¶16

The^"Sub RegistrarIGhanpur Station,^{Main Road,Station Ghanpur, Warangal} District

¶17

Vanga Va.iramma, W/o. Late^{V.RaghavaReddy,Aged4.9-Y"91'".,Occ. Household,} R/o.ham!ur Village of Dharmasagar^{[t4andal,WarangalDistrict.}

¶18

Vanga Srilatha, DIo. Late V.Raghava Reddy,^{Aged 32 years, Occ. Household,} R/o.-Rampur Village of Dharmasagar^{Mandal, WarangalDislrict.}

¶19

Vanga Laxmi (Lac-hamma), W/o.^{L-ate Komra Reddy,Aged.62 years, O.cc..} . Houiehold, R/b. Rampur Village of Dharmasagar^{Mandal,Warangal Dislrict.}

¶20

Vanga Sulochana, D/6. Late^{KiomraReddy,Aged 40-years, Occ. Household,Fl/o'} Rampur Village of Dharmasagar^{lrilandal,WarangalDistrict.}

¶21

10.Vancia Anianimma, W/o. Lat6^{Komra Reddy,Agbd 35 years, Occ. House hold,} Fl/o."Ramirur Village of Dharmasagar^{Mandal,WarangalDistrict.}

¶22

11.Vanqa ndOna, Wl6. Late Komra^{R-eddy,Aged 30 years, Occ. Household'R/o.} Ram-pur Village of Dharmasagar^{Mandal,WarangalDistrict.} (Respondents 2lo 11 ate not necessary parties)

¶23

...RES'ONDENTS

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶25

Petition under section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin the} affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further} proceedings in oS.No.2312003 on the file of the^{Principal senior civil Judge, warangal.}

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{SRl. J VENKATESWARA REDDY}

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: SRI Y.KRISHNA MOHAN RAO}

¶28

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶29

THE HON,BLE^{SRIJUSTICE CHALLA KODANDARAM}

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This Civil Revision^{Petition is filed against the order dated07'01'2020} passed by the Principal^{Senior Civilludge, at Warangal'in I'A'No'176 of} 2019 in O.S.No.23^{of 2003, dismlssing the applicationmadeby the} petitioners, under Section^{45 of the IndianEvidenceAct' seekingto send} Ex.A1 to the^{Government Security Press, Nasik, for determinationof} genuineness and correctness^{of the Stamps'}

¶32

Heardthelearnedcounselforthepetitioners,andthelearned counsel for the^resPondents.

¶33

It may be noted^{that the suit is filed by the respondent/plaintiff} seeking injunction^{With respect to. the suit scheduleproperty claiminghis} rights and^{possessionthrough a documentexecuted in 1993' whereas the} petitioner is claiming right^{through aregisteredSale Deeddated} 20.01.2003.^{Thoughthe legal rights with respect to the parties are} requiredtobedetermined,whatisrequiredtobeestablishedinasuitfiled for simplicitor injunction^{is the aspectof possessionover the property'}

¶34

In that view of^{the matter, refusing to send the document to the} Government Security^{Press, Nasik,for the purpose of determinationof} genuineness, that too, at^{a belated stage, cannotbe found fault' It maybe} noted that the suit^{is of the year 2003 and the application for sending the} document to Government^{security Presswas filedin the year2020,that is,} afteralapseoflTyears.InthatVieWofthematter,thiscourtdoesnot flnd any merit in^{the CivilRevisionPetition'}

¶35

Accordingly, the^{CivilRevision Petitionis dismissed'No costs'} Miscellaneous^{petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed'}

¶36

SECTION^OFFICER

¶37

To, I 2a. . S? One 'd{ CC iJili:0jifii:'kli^{to Sri Y. Krishna} rH,T, fl';"".'*r E5,vB 4. Two CD Copies k gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0810412021

ORDER

CRP.No.216 of 2020

Of lrr-
{7
s$ ,'tr
+11
L].
., frll
',,1
*$"
,i
tH i

¶43

DISMISSING THE C.R.P WITHOUT COSTS.

¶44

)pU

N. Hemalatha and another v. S.Madhava Rao and 10 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Hemalatha and another v. S.Madhava Rao and 10 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

N.Jayaprada Vs Sri K.Jangireddy

Gudise Ratnaiah Vs Gudise Devaiah

Kashetti Chandraiah, And 2 Others Vs Kashetti Raji Reddy

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt. Afsar Taslin and 5 Others

Pasham Prudhvi Raj, And 6 Others Vs K. Padma, And 9 Others

N. Hemalatha and another Vs S.Madhava Rao and 8 others