Allowed

Dr.Nookal Vishnuvardhan Reddy v. Mr.Udaya Prakash Rathi

Telangana HC27 Sept 2021CRP/621/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court allowed the petition questioning a docket order. The court accepted that compromise talks were ongoing between the parties (landlords and tenants) and granted liberty to avail legal remedies.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed with liberty to avail remedies; no order as to costs.

Dr.Nookal Vishnuvardhan Reddy Vs Mr.Udaya Prakash Rathi — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{T.AMARNATHGOUD}

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :621 0F²⁰²⁰

¶6

Petition Under Article 227 of lhe^{Constitution of lndia aggrieved} by the docket order dated^{20-02-2020in O.S. No' 3131 of 2019 on the file} oi the Court of the Vll Junior^{Civil Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad.}

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

1 Dr.Nookal Vishnuvardhan^{Reddy, S/o.N.Amruth Reddy aged about50} years, Occ.Doctor.(Both arc R/o.H.No.8-2-601/J,^{Road No 2'} Banjarahills, Hyderabad

¶9

2 Dr.N.Anupama Cheruku,^{W/o, Dr.Nookal VishnuvardhanR-eddyrage-d} about 50^years, Occ,Doctor^(Both erg fl9ll,Nlq-.2-6011J'^{Road No 2,} Banjarahi[ls, Hyderabad.^{...PETITIONERS/ Defendants}

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Mr.Udava Prakash Rathi,^{S/o.late Bhagwan Das Rathiragedabout 39} years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.N o.20-2-104,^{HussainiAlam, Kabutar} Khana, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 Mr.Giridhar Gopal Bang, S/o.late^{Balaram Bgng,agedabout 55 years'} Occ,Business, Rlo.t^{to.i ZZ, Bang Bhavan,2nofloor, Sir Bhalchandra} Road, Hindu Colony, Road^{No.5, Dadar East, Mumbai, Maharastra-} 400014.

¶13

3 Smt.Vimala Devi Bang,^{W/o. Mr.Giridhar Gopal Bang,agedabout 51} vears. Occ.Business,^{ts/o.No.122,Bang Bhavan,2ndfloor, Sir} 'Ah;tchanOra Road, Hindu Colony, Road No.5, Dadar East, Mumbai, Maharastra-4O0014.

¶14

4 Smt.Akshita Bang, W/o.Mr.Shrivardhan^{Giridhar-Bangpged aboJt 29} veais- Occ.Busin"ess. Rl/o.No.11/6,^{Plot No'122, Bang Bhavan, 2nd} ifoor,^'Sir. enatchandri Road,^{Hindu Colony,Road No.5, DadarEast,} Mumbai, Maharastra-40001^4.

¶15

5 Smt.Divva lnani. W/o.Mr.Raiesh^{Kumar lnani,agedabout 51 years,} oi". erdi;".i. nlo.H.No.a-l-o^{84t 411 6' Kaustiilisociety'RoadNo"12,} Banjarahills, Hyderabad-500034.

¶16

6 Smt.sanoita lnani, W/o.Mr.Narayan^{lnani, aged about 45 years'} o"C.ar.i;".s, R/o:H.No.8-2-684t^{4t 16, KaushikSocietv'npq9} I'1o-.1?' Baniarahills. Hvderabad-500034.^{All are represented throughtheir GPA} Hoid"r S.t.Sr'rita Rathi^{W/o.Ir/r.Udaya Prakash Rathi aged about37} yeiis, Occ.Business, R/o.H.No.2O-2-104,^{Hussaini KabutarKhana'} Hyderabad.

¶17

Smt.Sarita Rathi,_Wo. Mr.Udaya Prakash Rathirage,i about 37 years, Occ.Business, RIo.H.No.20-2-104, Hussaini Alaln, Kabutar Khaha, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/ Plaintiff

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the lligh Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.313'1 of 2O19 on the file of the Court of Vll Junior. Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above C.R-P.

¶20

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶21

Between:

¶22

Mr.Udaya Prakash Rathi, S/o.late Shri Bhagwan Da; Rathiraged about 1_1^{years,Occ.Business, R/o.H.No.20-2-104,Hussani Alam,kabutar} Khana, Hyderabad, TS-02.

¶23

Mr.Giridhar Gopal Bang, S/o.late Balaram Banq,aoed about 57 vears. Occ.Business, R/o.No.122, Bang Bhavan, 2d ll6oi, Si. Bhalchandra Road, Hindu Colony, Road No.5, Dadar East, Mumt,aj, MH-4OOOi4.

¶24

Smt.Vimala Devi Bang, Wo. Mr.Giridhar Gopal Banl,aged about 53 years, Occ.Business, FUo.No.1 22, Bang Bhavan, 2nd'floor, Sir Bhalchandra Road, Hindu Colony, Road No.S, Dade r East, tvlumbai, MH-400014.

¶25

4 Smt.Akshita Bang, W/o.Mr.Shrivardhan Giridhar Barrg,aged about 31 years, Occ.Business, R/o.No.l'116, Plot No.122, 2nd fl6or] Bang F.neuql,^{Hindu Colony-S,Sir Bhalchandra Road, Dzdar East, -Mumbai,} MH-400014.

¶26

E Smt.Divya lnani, W/o.Mr.Rajesh Kumar lnanrraged rrbout 53 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No.8-2-6 841 41 1 6, KaushiliSoc,er:y, Road No. 1 2, Banjarahills, Hyderabad, TS-34.

¶27

6 Smt.Sangitanani, W/o.Mr.Narayan lnani 7 aged about 47 years, Occ.Business, R/o.H.No.8-2-68414116, Kaushik Sc ciety, Road No.1 2, Banjarahills, Hyderabad, TS-34.

¶28

represented by their General Power of attornev ljolder Smt.Sarita Rathi W/o. Mr.U_daya. Prakash Rathi, aged about 37 years, Occ.Business, R/o. H. No.20-2-104, Hussainialrrnr, Kabutar (hana, Hyderabad, TS-02

¶29

7 Smt.Sarita Rathi, W/o Mr.Udaya Prakash RathiBged about 39 years, Occ.Business, R/o. H. No.20-2-1 04, Hussainialam, K abutar Kharia, Hyderabad. ...Petitio ne rs/Respondents

¶30

And

¶31

1 Dr.Nookal Vishnuvardhan Reddy, S/o.N.Amruth Reddyr aged about 45ears, Occ.Medical practioner carrying at B-2-(O.l/J,-Ro;d No.1O, Banjarahills, Hyderabad

¶32

¶33

2 Dr.N.Anupama Cheruku, W/o. Dr.Nookal Vishnuvardhan Reddv.aoed g.bou! 43 years, Occ.lr,4edical Practitioner carryino at 8-2-60ilJ1'RdaO No.'l 0, Banjarahills, Hyderabad.

¶34

...Respondents/ Petitioners

¶35

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 vacate the stay granted on dated. 06.03.2020 in Revision petition No.621/2020 and dismiss the above CRP .

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MOHD,MOIN AHMED eUADRI

¶37

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI DAMODAR MUNDRA

¶38

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶39

.IIlll HON'llL[] SRI ,f t.iS'IICE l'. ",.tAIiNA t'il GOtit) clVIl_ R[_'tslo)i PEl'l 1'lON tr-o.62 1 o' 1.020

¶40

OI{DEIi:

¶41

This revision pctition is filed questioning the docket order clated 20.02.2020, passed by the VII Junior Civil Judge, Oiry Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.3 131 of 2019.

¶42

Heard both sides and perused the material on re cord

¶43

Mr.Mohd. Moin Ahmed euadri, counsel for. ltetitioners has filed a Memo in proof of payment of amounts due znd the same has been accepted by the counsel 1br respondenls. Both sides further subr,it tlrat cornpromise talks arc going on between tte petitioners and the lespondents, rvho arc'the tenants and landlords respectively.

¶44

l ln t,ierv ol t l-rc. same, this revisiorr petition is allou,c-cl. _qivine libertl, to both sides, to avail all the remedies cpen under larv No order as to costs.

¶45

Pending rniscellaneous applications, if any, sha I stand closed.

¶46

¶47

Sd/.B.SATYAVATHI

¶48

ASSIiTANTEEGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// ! l,.r SECTION OFFICER

¶49

¶50

¶51

The Vll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to SRl. MOHD,MOIN AHMED QUADRlrAdvc cate [OpUC]

¶52

One CC to SRl. DAMODAR MUNDRArAdvocate [OPTJC:]

¶53

Two CD Copies

¶54

One Spare Copy k!L

;_.-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2710912021

ORDER

CRP.No.621 of 2020

Y
(l
.)a<
t,
t\ :.') 07 0cI2021 t)
1.,.i
;i
:."

¶61

ALLOWING THE CRP.

¶62

% eilt^{t lo}

¶63

Dr.Nookal Vishnuvardhan Reddy v. Mr.Udaya Prakash Rathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Nookal Vishnuvardhan Reddy v. Mr.Udaya Prakash Rathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxminarayana Vs Kavarampeta Kashanna

Smt.Kavitha Devi Vs Smt. Gurajaalpramila and 9 Others

Shilpa Madhura Vs Bandige Ashok Kumar

Smt. Parshetty Sangamma , Sampoorna Vs Karney Srinivas and 6 Others

Pinki Majumder Vs Komma Ravi Varma

Sravanthi Vankhare , Sravanthi Kotmirkar Vs Vankhare Sandeep