Dismissed

Anganti Rajamallu v. Kasam Madhusudhan Reddy

Telangana HC14 Oct 2022CRP/1608/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a Civil Revision Petition arising from an order dismissing an application under Order XXII Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC. The High Court held that due to the dismissal of a connected revision petition, the current petition was devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits with no order as to costs.

Anganti Rajamallu Vs Kasam Madhusudhan Reddy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1608 OF 2022

¶6

Petition under Article 1 15 of Criminal Procedure Code, againsUaggrieved by the Order dated. 29-4-2022 in |.A.NO. 80 OF 2020 in A.S.NO. 21 OF 2016 on the file of the ll Addl. District^judge,( FTC) Adilabad at Mancherial

¶7

Between:

¶8

Anganti Rajamallu, S/o.Rajaram. Aged about 69 years, Occ. Singareni Employee, Fl/o.Jenda VBenkatapur, RyM. Luxettipet, [Mancherial District, Presently at Kasireddypalli, GP Boodakurd, Ri M. Bellampally, Mancherial District. Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

Kasam Madhusudhan Reddy, (Died for LRs Respondents 5 and 6).

¶11

Kasam Radhamma, Wo. Late Venkat Reddy (Died for LR Respondent-1 )

¶12

Kasam Sunitha, W/o.Madhusudhan Reddy (Died for LR Respondent-1)

¶13

Anumandla Mutha Reddy, (Died for LRs Respts 7 to 10)

¶14

Respondents/Respondents/Respondents

¶15

Kasam Harish Reddy, S/o.Madhusudhan Reddy, Age. IVIajor, R/o.Flat No.G-6, Ridgefield and Giridhari lsthapet, Abhyudaya Nagar, Serilingampally, Dangadh Khaleej Khan, Hyderabad District Ranga Reddy.

¶16

Kasam Harika, D/o.Madhusudhan Reddy, W/o.Kiran Kumar Reddy, Aged about 26, Rl/o.Flat No.G-6, Ridgefield and Giridhari lsthapet, Abhyudaya Nagar, Serilingampally, Dangadh Khaleej Khan, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District-

¶17

Anumandhla @ Hanumandla Neeraja, W/o.Late Mutha Reddy, age. Major, Occ. Housewife

¶18

Anumandla @ Hanumandla Sridhar, S/o.Late Mutha Reddy, age. Major,

¶19

Anumandla @ Hanumandla Srilekha, D/o.Late Mutha Reddy, age. Major,

¶20

'l0.Anumandla @ Hanumandla Srilatha, D/o.Late Mutha Reddy, Age. Major, (Respondents No.7 to^'10 are F/o.H.No.1-23, Mamidipalli, Rl/M. Dandepally, Mancherial District).

¶21

Respondents/Respondents/Proposed Respondents

¶22

( Respondents NO. 1 to 4 and 7 to 10 are not necessary parties to this CRP)

¶23

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents No.5 and 6 from alienating, creating third party interest or deal with the petition schedule property in any way, pending disposal of the CRP.

¶26

Counscl for thc Petitioners: Sn. .ltAMA KRISHNA

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. K.MAt-IKHARJLINA MOORTH-

¶28

Counscl for thc Rcspondents:

¶29

Thc Court made thc follorving: ORDIIR

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY C.R.P.No.16Oa of 2022

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This Civil Revision Petition is liled assailing the order dated 29.O4.2022 in I.A.No.SO of 2O2O in A.S.No.21 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional District Judge at Mancherial.

¶33

The application in I.A.No.BO ol 2O2O is liled by the petitioner/appellant/plaintiff under Order-XXII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to brirrg the legal representatives of the deceased-respondents 1 to 4 on to record. This application was dismissed b_v the trial Court with a one line order stating that since IA No.77 of 2020 is dismissed, this petition has become infructuous

¶34

Against the order in IA I!o.77 o{ 2O2O, thc rcvision petitioner has filed C.R.P.No. 1605 of 2022 and the same is dismissed with a speaking order confirming the orders in IA No.77 of 2O2O passed by the appellate Court. Therefore, in view of the orders in C.R.P.No.1605 ol 2022, I do not find any merit in this civil revision petition

¶35

Page 2 of 2

¶36

A \ I1.I CRI' No. 1603 ol l()ll

¶37

Accordinglr'. the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed

¶38

as devoid of merits. Hou,ever, in the circurnstances of the

¶39

case, the|e' shall be no order as to costs

¶40

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, il any pending