Dismissed

Panasa Srikanth v. T. Ram Mohan Rao

Telangana HC26 Sept 2022AS/142/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed an appeal suit filed to stay a judgment and decree. The court observed that the parties admitted the facts under a compromise, where the appellant deposited a significant portion of the decree amount and agreed to pay the balance at registration, validating the lower court's decree.

What did the court decide?

The appeal suit was dismissed; the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2018 in O.S. No. 138 of 2013 were confirmed.

Panasa Srikanth Vs T. Ram Mohan Rao — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²¹⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶6

APPEAL SUIT No.142 of 2019

¶7

Appeal Under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 06.12.2018 in O.S.No.138 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge at Bhongir.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Panasa Srikanth, S/o Panasa Sathaiah, aged about 35 years, Occ - Business, Rl/o H.No.3-13-85/4A, Madhura Nagar, Ramanthapur, Uppal Mandal, R.R.District.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

T. Ram Mohan Rao, S/o Late T.Gopal Rao, Aged about 45 years, Occ - Business, Rl/o Flat No.20'1 , ARK Residency, Boduppal Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to stay the Judgment and Decree, passed in O.S. No.'l38 of 2013 on the file of V Additional District Judge at Bhongir, dated 06.12.2018, until final disposal of this Appeal Suit.

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI V. NARASIMHA GOUD

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI M. A. K. MUKHEED

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

t l

THE HON'BLI} SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWI,IIA REDDY APPEAL SUIT No. 142 OF 2019

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

Heard r:arned counsel on both sides. TL e appellant /^{defendantand respondent} /^{plaintilfpreserrl..The1, 21.} identified by learned counsel on both sides. IVIern-ro liled on behalf of ap1 rellant along u'ith terms of comprornise. Both the parties^-rave admitteci that learned coun:lel on both side have e <plained the terms of comprom,se and they admitted thz t the_v are true ar-rd correctly recorl,,'d. As per terms of c' )mpromise the plaintiff has agreed to pay Rs.30,00,O0 -r7- and the defer-rdanl has irgree d to receive the said amr )unt and to execute a registered sale det-'d. It is further agrr t:ri bet'uveen the parties that the plaintiff has deposited R;.7,OO,OO0/- as per the decree tc the credit ol O.S.No.138 ol 2013 before the V Additional District. Judge, Bhongir on l)6.72.2078 and also agreed to pa1' 1he balance amount of Rs.23,00,OOO/- at the time oI' registration. Thus, 1n te rms of compromise, stated above, the appeal suit is dis r-rissed confirming the judgmen t :,rnd decree dated O6.7i 2Ol8 in O.S.No.138 of 2013 on th3 iile olthe V Additior-r )istrict.Judge, Bhongir.

¶25

¶26

In the circumstances ol the case, there shall be

¶27

no order as to the costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any

¶28

pending, shall stands closed

¶29

SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The V Additional District Judge, Bhongir. (with records) 2. One CC to Sri V. Narasimha Goud, Advocate [OPUC]

¶34

One CC to Sri M. A. K. Mukheed, Advocate [OPUC]

¶35

Two CD Copies 5. One Spare Copy gbr

-tJr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 26109t2022

JUDGMENT

AS.No.142 of 2019

6,ii;.;>
;'. <br>": l
[1 \ti\ flIl :1' /
,/
)/
G.,

¶42

DISMISS!NG'THE AS WITHOUT COSTS

¶43

|³²¹⁸¹

¶44

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶45

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶46

PRESENT

¶47

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶48

APPEAL SUIT No.142 of 2019

¶49

Between:

¶50

Panasa Srikanth, S/o Panasa Sathaiah, aged about 35 years, Occ - Business, R/o H.No.3-13-85/4A, Madhura Nagar, Ramanthapur, Uppal Mandal, R.R.District.

¶51

..,APPELLANT

¶52

AND

¶53

T. Ram Mohan Rao, S/o Late T.Gopal Rao, Aged about 45 years, Occ - Business, R:/o Flat No.201, ARK Residency, Boduppal Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶54

...RESPONDENT

¶55

Appeal Under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree of the Court of the V Additional District Judge at Bhongir in O.S.No.138 of 2013 dated 06.12.2018.

¶56

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material^papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V. Narasimha Goud, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶57

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶58

'l . That the Appeal Suit be and hereby is dismissing.

¶59

That the Judgment and Decree dated 06.12.2018 in O.S.No.138 of 2013 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Bhongir be and hereby is confirmed; and

¶60

That there shall be no order as to costs in this Appeal.

¶61

SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// r 0,, SECTION OFFICER

¶62

To,

¶63

The V Additional District Judge, Bhongir. (with records) 2. Two CD Copies

¶64

One Spare Copy

{d>

HIGH COURT

DATED: 26109t2022

DECREE

AS.No.142 ot 2019

DISMISSING THE AS WITHOUT C0STS

¶71

Panasa Srikanth v. T. Ram Mohan Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panasa Srikanth v. T. Ram Mohan Rao

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

M/S.Jai Bhavani Interiors and Furniture, Secunderabad and Anothr Vs Arya Prathinidhi Sabha, a.P., Hyderabad and Another

Sarikonda Sushma Vs Sarikonda Nagendra Bhat

M/s. Grove Limited, Vs M/s. Shrinath Roto Pack (P) Ltd.

Sarikonda Sushma Vs Saronda Nagendra Bhat

Mr. Dundoo Vikas and 2 Others Vs Y Naga Satish and 2 Others

Smt. Madhuri Kalekar and another Vs Mr. Suneel Kumar Kalekar