Dismissed

Tuljaram Yadav v. Sundermal

Telangana HC19 Oct 2022CRP/2165/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that Interim Applications filed to set aside a common order and condone delay were decided without jurisdiction after the revision was adjudicated. Relying on the principle of functus officio, the Court declared such orders nullity and set them aside, dismissing the applications while maintaining the original order.

What did the court decide?

The Interim Applications stood dismissed; the original common order dated 19.10.2022 is restored and remains in operation.

SL. NO	DATE	ORDER	OFFICE NOTE
	04.03.2025	NTR,J The Civil Revision Petition was adjudicated along with C.R.P.No.2165 of 2001 on 19.10.2022. The respondents Nos. 2 to 5 in the revision petitions filed I.A.Nos.1 of 2023 with a prayer to condone the delay of 46 days in filing the petition for setting aside the order dated 19.10.2022 in C.R.P.No.2138 of 2001, and I.A.No.2 of 2023 with a prayer to set aside the ex-parte order dated 19.10.2022 in C.R.P.No.2138 of 2001. This Court on 29.01.2025 in the Court dictated an order as follows: *I.A.No.01 of 2023* This application is filed by petitioner/LR’s of respondent No.1 in C.R.P.No.2138 of 2001 with a prayer to condone the delay of 46 days in filing the petition for setting aside the order dated 19.10.2022 in C.R.P.No.2138 of 2001. *I.A.No.02 of 2023* This application is filed by petitioners/LR’s of respondent No.1 in C.R.P.No.2138 of 2001 with a prayer to set aside the ex-parte order dated 19.10.2022 in C.R.P.No.2138 f 2001. *C.R.P.No.2138 f 2001.* None for the petitioner.	Transferre d to I/O folder before correction.

SL.
NO

DATE

ORDER

OFFICE
NOTE

04.03.2025

NTR,J
The Civil Revision Petition was adjudicated
along with C.R.P.No.2165 of 2001 on 19.10.2022.
The respondents Nos. 2 to 5 in the revision
petitions filed I.A.Nos.1 of 2023 with a prayer to
condone the delay of 46 days in filing the petition
for setting aside the order dated 19.10.2022 in
C.R.P.No.2138 of 2001, and I.A.No.2 of 2023 with
a prayer to set aside the ex-parte order dated
19.10.2022 in C.R.P.No.2138 of 2001.
This Court on 29.01.2025 in the Court
dictated an order as follows:
I.A.No.01 of 2023
This application is filed by petitioner/LR’s of
respondent No.1 in C.R.P.No.2138 of 2001 with a
prayer to condone the delay of 46 days in filing
the petition for setting aside the order dated
19.10.2022 in C.R.P.No.2138 of 2001.
I.A.No.02 of 2023
This application is filed by petitioners/LR’s of
respondent No.1 in C.R.P.No.2138 of 2001 with a
prayer to set aside the ex-parte order dated
19.10.2022 in C.R.P.No.2138 f 2001.
C.R.P.No.2138 f 2001.
None for the petitioner.

Transferre
d to I/O
folder
before
correction.

SL.
NO

DATE

ORDER

OFFICE
NOTE

Ms. Sonali A Rathi, learned counsel
representing Mr. B. Shanker, learned counsel for
respondents.
List the matter on 31.01.2025 under the
caption “for dismissal”.
However, along with the above said order
Court Master typed another order on the same
day as follows:
I.A.No.1 of 2023
This application is filed by petitioners/LR’s of
respondent No.1 in C.R.P.No.2138 of 2001 to
condone the delay of 46 days in filing the petition
for setting aside the order dated 19.10.2022 in
C.R.P.No.2138 of 2001.
Having regard to the submissions, to extend fair
opportunity to the petitioners, who are the legal
representatives of the deceased respondent No.1
in C.R.P.No.2138 of 2001, allowing this petition
found proper.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2023 is allowed.
I.A.No.2 of 2023

This application is filed by petitioners/LR’s of
respondent No.1 in C.R.P.No.2138 of 2001 to set
aside the ex-parte order dated 19.10.2022 in
C.R.P.No.2138 of 2001.
Having regard to the submissions, to extend fair
opportunity to the petitioners, who are the legal
representatives of the deceased respondent No.1
in C.R.P.No.2138 of 2001, allowing this petition
found proper.
Accordingly, I.A.No.2 of 2023 is allowed.

SL.
NO

DATE

ORDER

OFFICE
NOTE

C.R.P.No.2138 of 2001
None for the petitioner.
Ms. Sonali A Rathi, learned counsel
representing Mr. B. Shanker, learned counsel for
respondents is present.
List the matter on 31.01.2025 under the caption
“for dismissal”.
As, the revision petitions are being listed
before this Court for hearing.
In this regard, it is pertinent to note that
once an order has been passed by this Court in
revision, this Court becomes functus-officio to
intervene with the order, except in the case of
filing a review petition. However, the second
order, as noted above, clearly making out
set-aside the ex-parte order has been passed as if
it is in regular course.

Once
the
revision
petition
has
been
adjudicated, and until an appropriate application
is filed for review, this Court shall not have any
jurisdiction to intervene and reconsider the
matter. The orders recorded as I.A. Nos. 1 and 2
of 2023, would stand as orders passed without
jurisdiction and, as such, these orders are a
nullity. Furthermore, the error is apparent on the
face of the record. Although it has been turned
inadvertently, the orders cannot be sustained
under the law. Thus, recalling these orders are

SL.
NO

DATE

ORDER

OFFICE
NOTE

found wrong accordingly ordered.

However, the prayer in I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of
2023 to condone the delay for setting aside, which
are filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, would be without jurisdiction and not
maintainable for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly,
for that reason, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 stand
dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted
liberty to avail any other remedies available under
the law, if the advise to do so.
In consequence, the common order passed
by this Court dated 19.10.2022 in C.R.P.Nos.
2138 and 2165 of 2001 shall remain in operation
and hold good.

_______
NTR,J

FM

Tuljaram Yadav v. Sundermal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tuljaram Yadav v. Sundermal

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

Kings Way Auto Services, Hya Vs Vani Bai (Died) and 12 Others

R. Kasinath Vs D. Subash

Kings Way Auto Services, Vs Sri Anil Agarwal

A Srilatha Vs K Chandra Prakash Rao and 6 Others

T.Yadav Vs Sundermal

The Tahsildar and Another Vs Gutha Kondal Reddy and 4 Others