Dismissed

G. Bala Vikarm Rao and 5 Others v. Smt. G. Mamatha and another

Telangana HC29 Nov 2021TRCRLP/85/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed an application filed under Section 151 CPC seeking a correction of the name of the transferee court in a transfer order, holding the filing to be a pure abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000 to be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee.

G. Bala Vikarm Rao and 5 Others Vs Smt. G… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

[³²³⁰ ]

¶2

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

¶3

SATURDAY THE ELEVENTH^{DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI}

¶6

lA No. 1 OF 2022

¶7

¶8

TRANSFER CRI MINAL^{PETTION NO: 85 OF 2019}

¶9

Between:

¶10

G. Bala Vikarm Rao,^{s/o. Satyanarayana, Aged about37 years, Occ' Govt',} Emptoyeu, r/o. H. No.^12-15-106'l ,^{ManikeshwariNagar, O'U' Campus,} Hyderabad.

¶11

B. Viiava Bharathi, w/o. Satyanarayana,^{Aged about 64 years, Occ' Retd',} - Empibiee, r/o. H. No. 12-i5-1ooi, Manikeshwari Nagar, O.U. Campus, Hyderabad.

¶12

B. Satvanaravan, S/o.^{Yadaqiri, Aged about 67 years,Occ' SocialWorker, r/o'} - H. flo.'rz-tSjtOOt, ManikeshwariNagar, O.U. Campus, Hyderabad.

¶13

B. Narsimha Rao,^{s/o. Satyanarayana'Aged about 42 yearc, Occ'Private} Emplovee, r/o. ti. tlo.^{1i-15-1o61,ManikeshwariNagar, o.U' Campus,} Hyderabad.

¶14

Smt. K. Vasavi,^{W/o. MallikarjunRao, Aged about 40 years, Occ'H.ouse} Hold, r/o. Flat No. 304,^{H No. 12-10-62611,Balaji NilayamApts'' Street No'4'} lndira Nagar Colony,^{Warasiguda, Sec'bad-61.}

¶15

-' OcC.-privdte E-mployee,'arc K. Mallikarjun @^{Mallikarjuna Rao, s/o. Koteshwar} tlo. Flat No. 304, H^Rao, No.^Ag.ed 12-10-62611,.Balaii.qb9y!#^{y^ea.rql} Nir"im ApG., streei^{r.16.+, rndira Nasar}

¶16

":.,."#i,H3fts;ft11o,a=?if;311#

¶17

AND

¶18

Smt. G. Mamatha^{and another,w/o. G. Bala VikramRao, Aged about31} v"iis, Oic.^{Fvt.,.loO,r/o. H. No. 1-57, Main Road, Thungathurthy Village and} Mandal, SuryaPet District.

¶19

The State of Telangana,^{through SHO, Thungathurthy P.S, Suryapet District} Rep., by its Public Prosecutor,^,'nn

¶20

"ornhE5g%Xl3Errr,*=.roNDENrs

¶21

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 take} up the Trl.crl.M.P. No.85^{of2019 underthe caption 'For Being Mentioned"} correcting the name^{of the transfereecourt as "JudicialFirst Class Magistrate'}

¶22

Nalgonda" in the place of "Family Court, Nalgonda" wherein it is mentioned in the order dated 29-1 1 -2021 .

¶23

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri J. L. BABU ,Advocate for the^Petitioners and the^{Public Prosecutor} on behalf of the Respondents No.2 and of SRl. C. HARI PREETH, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 .

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

This Application is filed to take up the matter under the caption 'for being mentioned' correcting the name of the Court as 'Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nalgonda' in the place of^'Family Court, Nalgonda', in the order dated 29-11-2021.

¶26

It is stated that instead of transfening to the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nalgonda, C.C. No. 295 of 2018 was directed to be transferred to Family Court at Nalgonda and the said mistake has to be conected in the order dated 2911-2021 .

¶27

ln the main Transfer Criminal Petition filed by the petitioner, C.C. No. 295 of 2018 was sought to be transferred to the Family Court at Nalgonda and in the order also, this Court observed that as already F.C.O.P. No. 573 oJ 2017 is pending before the Judge, Family Court at Nalgonda, this Court directed withdrawal of C.C. No. 295 of 2018 from the file of Judicial First Class magistrate at Tungathurthy and transferred the same to the Family Court at Nalgonda. Without any basis this Application is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it is nothing but a pure abuse of process of law.

¶28

The Application is therefore, dismissed^{with costs of Rs. 2,0001 (Rupees two} thousand only) to be deposited with the^{High Court Legal Services Committee within} a week from today

¶29

Sd/.MOHD.ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII m

¶30

SECTIOfi=-OFFICER

¶31

To,

¶32

The Judicial First Class^{Magistrate,at Thungathurthy, Suryapet District.}

¶33

The Family Court, at Nalgonda^District.

¶34

The Legal Services Commiftee,^{High Court for the State of Telangana,} Hyderabad.

¶35

One CC to M/s. J. L. BABU, Advocate [OPUC]

¶36

One CC to SRl. C HARI PREETH,^Advocate IOPUC]

¶37

Two CD Copies

DL plp

t I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110212023

ORDER lA No. 1 OF 2022

¶43

¶44

TRCRLP.No.8S of 2019

¶45

i:.;.
'/,,...'.,;
.',
s
i',t!
iiil =$
.;)
l)
-;)

¶46

DIRECTION

¶47

v,
t
\b

G. Bala Vikarm Rao and 5 Others v. Smt. G. Mamatha and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Bala Vikarm Rao and 5 Others v. Smt. G. Mamatha 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

Muvva Venkatrao Vs The State of Telangana

Chuttakula Mahipal Vs The State of Telangana

Chuttakula Mahipal and 4 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Harsha Upadrashta Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs. Sree Lakshmi Upadrashta Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Phani Bhushan Upadrashta Vs The State of Telangana