Dismissed

Dr. Molugu Sharat Chandra Reddy, v. Smt. P.Balamani , Vimalamma

Telangana HC21 Oct 2022CRP/4198/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order directing the appellant to proceed with an original suit rather than pressing an application for partition. The Court found no jurisdictional error as the trial was halted only for defendants' evidence, leading to the dismissal with no further directions.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no further directions issued; original suit proceedings to be expedited.

Dr. Molugu Sharat Chandra Reddy, Vs Smt. P.Balamani , Vimalamma — Partition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

I I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY}

¶6

CIVIL REVISIO N PETITION NO:^{4198 OF 2009}

¶7

Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution^{of lndia aggrieved by the order} dated 08-06-2009 in l.A.No.^{2693 of 2008 in O.S.No.157 of 2004on the file of} the Court of the ll Additional^{District Judge,RangaReddy District at} L.B.Nagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dr. Molugu Sharat Chandra Reddy,^{S/o. Late M. Rami Reddy, CivilAsst.Surgeon,} Rl/o. Plot No. 83, Anupuram Colony,^Hyderabad.

¶10

.. Appellant / PETITIONER/ Defendant No.12

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . Smt. P.Balamani @ Vimalamma, W/o. Ulla Reddy, Household' Fi/o. Uddamarri Village, Shamirpet Mandal,^{Ranga Reddy District.}

¶13

Sri M. Veerabhadra Reddy, S/o.^{Late Anji Reddy,Agriculture,Rl/o. Lalgadi} Malakpet Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga^{Reddy District.}

¶14

Sri M.Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Late^{Anji Reddy,Agriculture,Rl/o.Lalgadi} Malakpet Village, Shamirpet Mandal,^{RangaReddy District.}

¶15

Sri M. Balvanth Reddy, S/o. Late^{Bhupal Reddy,Agriculture,Rl/o. Lalgadi} Malakpet Village, Shamirpet Mandal,^{Ranga Reddy District.}

¶16

Sri M.Hanumanth Reddy, S/o. Late^{Bhupal Reddy,Agriculture,R/o. Lalgadi} Malakpet Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy^District.

¶17

Smt. M.Shamala Reddy, Wo. Late^{Bhupal Reddy,Agriculture'R/o. Lalgadi} Malakpet Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga^{Reddy District.}

¶18

Smt. Shamala, Wo. Venkat Reddy,^{Household, Rl/o. Jagadevpur Village&} Mandal, Medak District.

¶19

Smt. Sudha, Wo. Buchi Reddy, Household,^{Fl/o. KollurVillage, BHEL, Medak} District.

¶20

Smt. Pushpa, W/o. Venkat Reddy, Household,^{Rl/o.Ramanthapur,} Hyderabad.

¶21

10.Sri Y. Ravinder Reddy, S/o. Shivaram Reddy, Advocate,^{Rl/o.Uddamarri} Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy^District.

¶22

'1 1. Sri Y.Srinvias Reddy, S/o. Shivaram Reddy, Business, Rl/o. Uddamarri Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶23

12.Smt. K.Susheela, Wo. Raghupathi Reddy, Household, R/o. Jagadevpur Village & Mandal, Medak District.

¶24

...RESPONDENT Nos.2 to 12 / Defendant Nos. 1 to 11

¶25

l.A. NO:1 OF 2OOg(CRPMP. NO : 5749 OF 2009)

¶26

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in OS NO.^',l57 of 2004 on the file of ll Additional District^judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar Pending disposal Civil Revision Petition in the interest of Justice

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. N. MUKUND REDDY

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI P. RAMESH RAJ

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2lo 12: NONE APPEARED

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

/ ,/

,./

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{A.VENI(ATESHWARAREDDY} CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4198 of^2OO9

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This Civil Revision Petition is filed^bythe petitioner/ defendant No. 12 challenging^{the validityand} legatity of the orders dated 08.06'2009^{in I.A. No.2693 of} 2008 in O.S No. 157 of 2OO4^{pending on the file of learned} II Additional District Judge,^{Ranga Reddy at L.B Nagar.}

¶37

¶38

Today the matter was directed to^{be listed} under the caption 'for dismissal'.^{Be it stated that in the} very sarne suit, the very^{same defendant No.12 has filed} another Civil Revision Petition^{vide CRP No.1677 of 2019} assailing the orders dated^{1I.O7.2019in I.A. No.1072of} 2019 in O.S No.157 of 2OO4^{and that CRP No. 1677 of 2079} is dismissed to the speaking^{orderrvith a direction to the} Trial Court to dispose of^{the Original Suit in O.S No.157 of} 2004 within three months^{from the date of receipt of copy} of the order.

¶39

In the present Civil^{RevisionPetition,the} defendant No.12 has challenged^{theorders dated}

¶40

¶41

08.06.2009 in I.A. No.2693 of 2008. On a perusal of the said order, it is crypt docket order, wherein the Court below has observed that since the suit is pending from the year 2OO4, the petitioner is directed to proceed u,ith the suit instead of pressing the Application in I.A.No.2693 of 2008. This Application in I.A.No.2693 of 2OO8 was filed under Order XII Rule 6 r/w Sec. 151 C.P.C with a prayer to pass a decree for partition and separate possession in respect ol the share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties situated at Lalagadi, Malakpet Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The Trial Court having considered the status of the Original Suit in O.S No. 157 of 20O4, since the pleadings were completed, issues were settled by the, directed the defendant No.l2 to proceed with the Trial instead of pressing this application in I.A.No.2693 of 20O8.

¶42

4 . Having regard to the fact that the Original Suit is pending since the year 2OO4 and the evidence of plaintiffs was closed long back and the suit is being adjourned only for defendants further evidence and in fact

¶43

DW- t has filed his evidence affidavit and when an

¶44

///

¶45

¶46

application in LA.No. lO72 of 2019 rvas filed for reception of the documents, proceedings were stalled, I do not find any jurisdictional error or irregularity committed by the Court belou, in passing the order dated 08.06.2O09. Accordingly, the order impugned is sustained

¶47

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as divide of merits. Since the Original Suit is pending from 2OO4 onwards ald the plaintiffs evidence is concluded, evidence of DW- 1 is in progress and that the CRP No.1677 of 2019 is dismissed rvith a direction to the Trial Court to expedite the disposal of the Original Suit by conducting the proceedings on day to day basis, no further directions are required in this Civil Revision Petition.

¶48

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stands closed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs.

¶49

//TRUE COPY//

¶50

SDII.NAGALA(FHMI oEpuw REGIsIRAR t seclou#rcen

¶51

To,

¶52

The ll Additional District^{Judge,Ranga ReddyDistrictat L.B'Nagar'}

¶53

One CC to SRl. N.^{MUKUND REDDYAdvocate} [OPUC]

¶54

One CC to SRl. P.^{RAMESH RAJ Advocate} [OPUC]

¶55

Two CD Copies

¶56

One Spare Caopy

c_f

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 11012022

ORDER

\r.E Sf,5.i e'
(
7
or) 15'NjJ m. .):
Cu-
-*-,

¶62

CRP.No.4198 of 2009

¶63

DISMISSING TIIE CRP WITHOUT COSTS

¶64

<br>..-
€) \e

Dr. Molugu Sharat Chandra Reddy, v. Smt. P.Balamani , Vimalamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Molugu Sharat Chandra Reddy, v. Smt. P.Balamani , Vimalamma

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

Indira Anadha Vruddashramam, Rep.by President, Naglodna Dt Vs Dr.Baddigam Rama Krishna Reddy, Nalgonda District

Smt. T.Sulochana Vs K.Subhash Reddy

Mohd Hasen Vs Mohammed Dasthagiri and Anr.

Mohd Sardaruddin and Another Vs Mohd Ibrahim Farooqui

S. Ram Reddy and 3 Others Vs S. Indira Reddy and 8 Others

N.Shankar Goud and 2 Others Vs Sampath Srinivasa Rao and 5 Others