Disposed

Smt G. Vasantha v. Smt G. Latha

Telangana HC12 Feb 2021CRP/225/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Revision Petition under Article 227, the High Court directed the trial court to dispose of pending interlocutory applications in a partition suit within two weeks. The Court also noted that any pending interlocutory applications stand closed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Order 35. Order No. 12. The revised and amended order of the trial court is to be disposed expeditiously within two weeks, and all pending interlocutory applications shall stand closed without costs.

Smt G. Vasantha Vs Smt G. Latha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY .THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 225 OF 2021

¶7

Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the adjournments given in O.S. No. 21'l on the file of the Court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge at Chevella

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt G. Vasantha, wife of Ch.Ramalinga Reddy, Aged about 51years, Occupation Housewife, H No. 14-149, Gandhi Nagar Colony, Shadnagar, Faroognagar, Ranga ReddyDist. -509216

¶10

Smt D. Suryakala, wife of D. Shiva Reddy,Aged about 47 years, Occupation housewife, H.No. 4-11517, Plot No. 431P, VivekanandaNagar, Kismatpur, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy, Dist. - 500086

¶11

Smt G. Chandrakala, wife of G. Sudarshan Reddy, aged about 47 years, occupation housewife, H.No. 3-6.290/b, Sai Tirumala Towers, Flat No 502,Hyderguda, Hyderabad - 500029

¶12

.. REVISION PETITIONERS/ PLAINTIFFS

¶13

AND

¶14

Smt G. Latha, wife of Late Sri G. Satyanarayana Reddy, aged about 46 years, Occupation: housewife, H. No. 1-5'1 , Hythabad Village, Shabad Irilandal, Ranga Reddy, Dist-509217, T.S.

¶15

Kum G. Keerthi, daughter of Late Sri G. Sathyanarayana Reddy, aged about 25years, Occupation student, H. No.^'1-5'1 , Hythabad Village, Shabad [,4andal, Ranga Reddy, Dist-5092'1 7, T.S.

¶16

Kum Kavya, daughter of Late Sri G. Sathyanaruyana Reddy aged about 23 years, occupation student, H. No.^'1-51 , Hythabad Village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy, Dist-50921 7, T.S.

¶17

IMr. Saieshwar Reddy, son of Late Sri G. Satyanarayana Reddy, aged about 19 years, Occupation student, H. No. 1-51 , Hythabad Village, Shabad lrlandal, Ranga Reddy, Dist-509217, T.S.

¶18

Smt G. Padmamma, wife of Sri. Late G. Vithal Reddy aged about 71 years, Occupation housewife, H. No. 1-51, Hythabad Village, Shabad IVandal, Ranga Reddy, Dist-509217, T.S.

¶19

Sri Mahesh Deshmukh, son of Late Rajeshwar Rao Deshmukh aged about 55 years, Occupation Business, H. No. 3-4-254 and 2541111, Flat No. 302, NathVedesh Towers, lane beside VenkataramanaTheatre, Kachiguda, Hyderabad-500027, T.S.

¶20

Smt Vadla Kanaka Durga, wife of Sathynarayana Chary, aged about 31 years, Occupation housewife, H. No. 1-23, Hythabad Village, Shabad It4andal, Ranga Reddy, Dist-509217, T.S.

¶21

B. Sri Ponna Venkat Reddy, S/o. P. Ram Reddy, aged about 49^years, Occupation business, H. No. 2-51, Hythabad Vittage, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy, Dist-509217, T.S.

¶22

Smt. Tekula Chandramma,^{wife of T. KistaReddy, aged about 74 years,} Occupation housewife,^{H. No. 1-13, Hythabad Village, ShabadMandal,} Ranga ReddY, Dist-509217,^T.S.

¶23

( No relief is sought against the Respondents^{5 & 6 herein} )

¶24

...RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS

¶25

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶26

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 direct restrain the respondents^{1 to 4 and 7 to 9 from changing} ihe nature of the suit schedule^{prope(ies including the constructions taken} up thereon,^pending .disposal^{of the CRP, and pass}

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{Sri RajashekharReddyfor}

¶28

Sri. M urarisetty Keshava^Rao

¶29

Counsel for the Respondents:^NONEAPPEARED

¶30

The Court made the following:^OROER

¶31

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶33

c.R.P.NO.225 0t 2021

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The cose of the petiiioners/ploiniif f s is thot lhey filed lhe suit in O.S.No.2l 1 ot 202a on the file of Addiiionol .Junior Civil Judge ot Chevello, seeking portition of the^joinl fomily^properly ond for concellolion of sole deeds execuled by respondent No.l in fovour of^{'lhird porlies.ln the suil,} they filed l.A.No.5B7 ot 2020 under Order 39, Rules I ond^{2 of} CPC^seeking temporory injunction restroining the respondents/def endonts^from chonging the noture of the suit schedule^{property,ond the soid} interlocuiory opplicotion is^pending. They olso filed^{l.A.Nos.S8Bond 589 of} 2020 seeking temporory injunclion restroining the defendonts/respondents from olienoting the suit schedule^properties, ond the courl^{below vide} order doted 21 .09.2020^gronted od interim^{junction os proyed for. lt is} f urther stoled thot the detendonts/respondenls^{filed l.A.No.974 ot 2420} under Order 26, Rule 9 of CPC seeking oppoinlmenl^{of Advocoie} Commissioner ond the some^is olso^pending.

¶36

The grievonce of^{'the petilioners} is lhot the court^{belowis merely} odjourning l.A.No.5BZ of 2020 wilhout^possing ony^{orders, ond further,} though they hove^given no objection in 1.A.No.974 of^{2020, filed by the} respondenls seeking oppoinlmenl of^{Advocote Commissioner,the court} below is nol disposing of the soid^{inlerlocutory opplicotion,ond ioking} odvontoge of the some, ond olso the order^{doted 21 .09.2020in} l.A.Nos.5BB ond 589 ot 2020, the^{respondents/defendonts ore proceeding} with the construclion in the suit schedule^properiy.

¶37

Heord the leorned counsel oppeoring^{for bolh the porties.}

¶38

¶39

¶40

Hoving regord to the focts ond circumstonces,^{ond the petilioners} ore seeking for disposol of^{l.A.Nos.sBZ and 974 of 2020 in O.S.No.21l of} 2020, wlthout expressing ony opinion on^{merits, the lriol courtis directed} to dispose of the obove stoled interlocutory^{opplicotionsin occordonce} with low, os expediliously os^{possible, preferoblywiihin o period of two} weeks from the dote of receipl of o copy of this order.

¶41

The C.R.P. is occordingly disposed of.

¶42

Interlocutory opplicotions^pending, lf ony, sholl slond closed.^No

¶43

order os lo costs.

¶44

_.-.-'rE!..*..

¶45

SD/. M. MANJULA, ASSISTANT^REGIST

//TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER

The Additional Junior^{Civil Judge at Chevella} '^{Ranga Reddy} District.

¶50

2 One CC to^{SRIMURARISETTYKESHAVA RAO' Advocate[OPUCI}

¶51

Two CD CoPies

;

HIGH COURT

ARRJ

DATED:1210212021

ORDER

1 trE STA ,ci
A
ry
oo 0 4 l4An ?!121
).
.c
4
* tt
:iJr

¶59

CRP.No.225 of 2021

¶60

DISPOSING OF THE CRP

¶61

WITHOUT COSTS

Smt G. Vasantha v. Smt G. Latha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt G. Vasantha v. Smt G. Latha

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

The Fishermen Cooperative Society, Vs Sri Devender

M/s. Raja Rajeswari Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/s. Ncc Limited

T.Satyanarayana Prasad Vs Noor Mohammed Syed

Naren Mohanraj Madurai Vs Suchita Rao Ketineni

Jambula Anjan Reddy Vs Jambula Vasavi

M/s. Meenakshi Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s. Abhyudaya Green Economic Zones Pvt. Ltd.