Dismissed

Nakka Posetty v. N Jagannatham

Telangana HC21 Sept 2022CCCA/111/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana heard a civil appeal filed against a judgment and decree. The appellant's counsel was absent during hearings, and the appellant failed to comply with a conditional stay order. The respondent demonstrated that possession was delivered via an execution petition. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for default.

What did the court decide?

The appeal suit is dismissed for default

Nakka Posetty Vs N Jagannatham — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶5

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO; 111 OF 2018

¶6

Appeal Under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree dated 05-02-2018 made in O.S.No. 848 of 2O11on the file of the Court of the lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Nakka Posetty, S/o. Late N, Kristaiah, Aged about Bl years, Occ: Retired from Bank Service, R/o H.No.B/12lF-4, Sanjeevareddy Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶9

...AppellanUPlaintiff

¶10

AND

¶11

N. Jagannatham, S/o. Late N. Kistaiah, Aged 76 years, Occ: Retired Government Servant, R/o H.No.12-5-150/34, South Lalaguda, Secunderabad.

¶12

...RespondenUDefendant

¶13

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri. VENKAT RAGHU RAMULU

¶14

Counsel forthe Respondent: S. LAKSHMI KANTH

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY CITY CML COURT APPEAL NO.111 of 2018 JUDGMENT

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that nothing remains in this appeal suit in view of the fact that execution petition is fi1ed and^possession is also delivered. Accordingly, the matter was c:a-1led again at 02.30 P.M. for ascertaining the facts from learned counsel for the appellant, nho remained absent. In-fact when initially the matter u,as cal1ed, some other Advocate has represented on behalf of the appellant but at 02.40 P.M. when the matter is again called, learned counsel for the appellant remained absent u.ithout any representation.

¶18

Perused the orders in I.A.Nos.1 of 2018 and 2 of 2018. As per orders in I.A.No.1 of 2018 dated 14.06.20 18 interim stay was granted whereas on 14.08.20 18, as per the orders in I.A.No.2 of 2018, stay petition was disposed ol with certain conditions as extracted below:

¶19

"Keeping this dictum laid down by Apex court in view, this Court is of the opinion that -tQ:espondent (petitioner in LA.No.1 of 201B)

¶20

AVR.J CCCA ]II 2OI8

¶21

¶22

shall be entitled to stay on the following conditions :

¶23

(a) The appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- which is equal to 5Oo/o of the amount awarded as damages within a period of two (2) months from today.

¶24

(b) On such deposit being made, the vacate petitioner will be at liberty to withdraw the same; and

¶25

(c) In addition a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month (as provisional damages) should be deposited by the appellant from the date of appeal till the date of final disposal of the appeal The said deposit of Rs.3,500/- per month shall be made 5th of every month. This amount sha,ll be kept in the interest bearing fixed deposit and whoever is successful in the end shall be entitled to the same. Needless to say that by paying the money.or withdrawal of the said amount, either of the party giving up of any rights. It is made clear that if there is default in deposit of two months consecutively, the stay granted herein shall stand vacated automatically.

¶26

Accordingly, with the above observations, this vacate petition is disposed of.

¶27

Post the appeal "for hearing" in its usual

¶28

.. course"

¶29

AVR,J cccA l 2018

¶30

¶31

The said conditional order datecl 14.08.2018 is not complied with. Learned counsel for the respondent In further submitted that as per the proceedings E.P.No. 183 of 2019 possession is deiivered and nothing survives in the appeal suit. To that effect a copy ol the panchanalna and the proceedings in E.P.No.183 of 2019 before the le arned Ill Additional Chief Judge, Citv Civil Court, Hyderabad is filed. Therefore, having regard to the above, I find justification in the request and submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent.

¶32

In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed for default confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 05.02.2018 in O.S.No.B4B of 2011 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, sh.atl sland clasad.

¶33

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶34

Iu SECTION OFFICER

¶35

To,

¶36

The lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

¶37

One CC to Sri. VENKAT RAGHU RAMULU, Advocate IOPUCI

¶38

One CC to Sri. S. LAKSHMT KANTH, Advocate IOPUC]

¶39

Two CD Cocies

PSR r r.)<-

HIGH COURT

AVR,J

DATED;21 10912022

ORDER

CCCA.No.111 of 2018

1 HE srA ,^
,ia
c
(.) 0I FtB 2023
o

¶47

DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR DEFAULT.

¶48

li{}

Nakka Posetty v. N Jagannatham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nakka Posetty v. N Jagannatham

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

Gattoju Haritha Vs G.Sai Ram

Smt. Bandoju Krishnaveni Vs Uppula Aravind Kumar

P.N.Sudhakar, Vs Mohammed Ismail

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

Dasari Sruthi Vs Dasari Srinivasa Rao

Pedagoumalla Vijaya Lakshmi Vs S.K. Jani Miya and Another