Dismissed

C Rama Murthy, Hyd v. Shravan Badruka, Hyd and Another

Telangana HC31 Dec 2021CRP/53/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed Civil Revision Petition No. 53 of 2016 under Article 227 as infructuous after counsel submitted that the matter between the parties was settled. An accompanying CRP under Section 151 CPC praying for suspension of the order was also handed down.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.

C Rama Murthy, Hyd Vs Shravan Badruka, Hyd… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 53 OF 2016

¶7

Petition under Article 227 o'f lhe Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 26.10.2014 in R.A.No.173 ol 2014 on the file of the Court of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

C. Rama Murthy, S/o. C. Eshwaraiah, aged 58^{years, Occ:Business'} R/o. 15-9-482, Mehboobgund, Hyderabad.

¶10

...REVISION PETITIONERYRESPONDENT

¶11

AND

¶12

Shravan Badruka, S/o. Mukundlal Badruka,^{aged 42 years, Occ: Business,}

¶13

Shyam Badruka, S/o. Mukundlal Badruka,^{age.d41 years, Occ:Business,.} Boih residents H.No.8-2-686/9/9 &^{10, Road.No.12, Banlara Hills, Hyderabad.}

¶14

,..RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT

¶15

c RPMP. NO: 75 OF 2016

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed therewith, the^{Highcourtmay be pleasedto suspendthe order} passed in RA.No.173 of 2014 dated: 26.10.2015^passed by the^{Hon'ble Additional} Chief Judge, City Small Causes^{Court, Hyderabad.}

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{DAMODAR MUNDRA}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SRI R. A. ACHUTHANAND}

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

THE HON'B,E DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶22

CIVII REVISION PETITION NO.53 OF 2016

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Learned cc unsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has been settler. between the parties and, therefore, the Civil

¶25

Revision Petition may be dismissed,

¶26

Recording -he said submission, the Civil Revision Petition is

¶27

dismissed as infr uctuous.

¶28

There shr ll be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous

¶29

applications, if a ry, pending shall stand dismissed.

¶30

SD/.N.CHANDRA SEKHAR^RAO

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Additional^{Cl rief Judge, City Small Causes Court,Hyderabad}

¶36

One CC to Sri Dt modar^{Mundra,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶37

One CC to Sri^R. A.^{Achuthanand, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶38

Two CD Copies

¶39

One Spare^CoPy

obr d"

HIGH^COURT

DATED: 31l12li'021

$E Sia
o()).t- 0 7 trl 2fl22

¶45

ORDER

¶46

CRP.No.53 of 2016

¶47

DISMISSING TlIE CRP AS INFRUCTUOUS

¶48

C Rama Murthy, Hyd v. Shravan Badruka, Hyd and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C Rama Murthy, Hyd v. Shravan Badruka, Hyd and Another

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

A Mallaiah, Karimnagaram Vs D.Laxmaiah, Karimnagar and 3 Others

Devaram Amrutha Reddy, Nalgonda Dist Vs Yelakakanthmma, Nalgonda Dist

Smt a Ben, Hyderabad and 4 Others Vs Sri J Hansraj, Hyderabad and 6 Others

Soma Hyderabad City Centre Pvt. Ltd, Hyd Vs the a.P.S.R.T.C., Hyd

C Prakash, Hyd Vs Shravan Badruka, Hyd and Another

S Mundada, Hyderabad Vs Shravan Badruka, Hyderabad and Anr.