Dismissed

Mr. Surender Bantia , Premraj Surendar Bantia and another v. K.N. Murthy and another

Telangana HC8 Mar 2022CRP/448/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Presenting a civil revision petition against a docket order rejecting an application for reopening evidence, the High Court held the petition infructuous as the lower court had decreed the suit in favour of affected parties, dismissing it with no costs.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs.

Mr. Surender Bantia , Premraj Surendar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF A/ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶5

c lVlL REVISION PETITION NO: 448 OF 2022

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of^{lndia aggrieved by the} Order dated 05.01 .2022^passed in t.A.^{No. 1473 ol 2021in O.S. No. 230 of 2019} on the file of the Court of the lX Additional^{Chief Judge,City CivilCourtat} Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

lVlr. Surender Bantia @ Premraj Surendar^{Bantia, S/o. G.P. Bantia,aged 58} years, occ. Business Rlo.2O7, Sikh Road, Secunderabad

¶9

Bantia Furnitures^(Bantia Furnitures Enterprises^{P,'t. Ltd., Rep by Surender} Bantia, H No.¹ 6-1 1-1l1/2, Srinivasa^Towers, Saleemnagar,^It,4alakpet Hvderabad

¶10

..,pETrroNERS/RESpoNDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶11

AND

¶12

K.N. lVlurthy, S/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 54^years, Occ. Business 2. Shailaja, W/o. K.N. lVurthy, Aged 50^years, Occ.^Housewife, Both are R/o. Plot No.9, H No.4-50i9 Jayabheri Enclave, Gachibowli, Hyderabad

¶13

..RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to STAY of all further proceedings in O.S.No.230 of 2019 on the file of court of the lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, pending disposal of main CRP.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioners: M/S. CHANDRASEN LAW OFFICES

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V. SATYAM REDDY

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶20

CML REVISION PETITION No.448 OF 2022

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heard Mr. K.S.Sunii, learned counsel for the revisior-r petitioners.

¶23

Revision petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.230 of 2019. This civil revision petition has been filed against the docket order dated 05.O1.2022, whereby the interlocutory application filed by the petitioners under Section 1 5 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for reopening the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 was rejected.

¶24

Learned colrnsel for the petitioners submits that after filing of the Civil Revision Petition, learned Court belou, i.e., Court of IX Additional Chief Jr-rdge, Ciry Civil Court ar Hyderabad, has decreed the suit i.e., O.S.No.230 of 2019 in favour of the plaintiffs.

¶25

That being the position, this Civil Revision Petition has become infructuous.

¶26

¶27

¶28

UB,J C.R.P.No.448 of 2022

¶29

The Civil Revision Petitlon is dismissed as

¶30

ir-rfructuous. No order as to costs.

¶31

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

¶32

anv, in this Civil Revision Petition, shal1 stand closed.

¶33

¶34

SD/.T.KRISHNA KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION FFICER

1 The lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶39

2 One CC to M/s. Chandrasei Law bffices, Advocdte [opUC]

¶40

3 One CC to Sri V. Satyam Reddy, Advocate IOPUC]

¶41

4 Two CD Copies 5 One Spare Copy gbr

,\ \ \

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0810312022

ORDER

::: Tr, 16
Qa
(
o!.) ?1 A.p$ ?f'?? .I:,
.'t t
o
'..

¶47

CRP.No.448 ot²⁰²²

¶48

DISMISSING THE CRP AS INFRUCTUOUS

¶49

$?: -ra{-r-

Mr. Surender Bantia , Premraj Surendar Bantia and another v. K.N. Murthy and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Surender Bantia , Premraj Surendar Bantia and another v. K.N. Murthy and another

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

Smt. P.Rajashree Vs M/s. Next Wave Global Technologies Private Limited

Dr. Vinnakota Sri Prakash Vs Dr. Jarupula Rajeshwari

M/s P.L.Raju Constructions Ltd. Vs M/s Rashtriya Pariyojana Nirman Nigam Ltd. and 4 others

Mr. Surender Bantia , Premraj Surendar Bantia Vs K.N. Murthy

Smt. Madhubala Dugar Vs M/s. Pannalal Ramlal Kimtee and Sons and 19 Others

M/S Sai Rayalaseema Paper Mills Limited, Hyd Vs M/S Pallavi Dealers Private Limited, Mumbai