Disposed

Lokanandhi Lalith Shankar v. Dr. Rabindranath.C.

Telangana HC15 Mar 2022CRP/500/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227, the High Court directed the lower court to decide a pending interlocutory application expeditiously within three months under Section 151 CPC due to excessive adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to decide I.A No. 253 of 2018 in O.S. No. 2925 of 2016 within three months.

Lokanandhi Lalith Shankar Vs Dr. Rabindranath.C. — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH^{DAY OF I\4ARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEUJJAL BHUYAN}

¶5

CIVIL REVISION^{PETITIONNO:500OF 2022}

¶6

Petition under Article^{227 ol lhe constitution of lndia aggrievedby the order} in t.A.No.253 0f 2018^{in os.No.29250f 2016 0n th6.file of the court of the X} Junior Civil Judge,^{City Civil Court,Hyderabad.}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Lokanandhi Lalith Shankar,^{S/o' Lokanandi Nirmal Kumar, age! about 55} ""r'*.-^{OC.. -eusiness, R/o.H.No.1-2-2131211,Amardeep,Domalguda,} hvoJiaoiJ,^{presently staying at 78BlNorthwestRoanridge_Road,^Kansas} C'nr- vLiolri-o+j52'Rep.' bv'GPA^{holder Shailendar Kumar Singh, S/o late} A.X. Si;gh. ageo ss^{yeard, occ.Business,No. 7621D12, TulasiNagar'} Amberpet, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

¶10

AND

¶11

Dr. Rabindranath.C.,^{S/o. Gopalakrishna, Age Major,Occ. Medical} Fractitioner, R/o. H.No.1-2-2821303,^{Flat No. 303, J-B Air Cooled Apartment,} Domalguda, Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶14

Petition under order 32^{Rule of cPC R/w Section 151 CPC praying thatin} the circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith, the Highcourt may be} pleased to permit shailendar Kumar Singh to^{representthe petitioner as} recognized agent/attorney^{in the above suit OS No.292512016.}

¶15

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶16

Petition under section 151 CPC^{praying thatin the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed therewith,^{the Highcourt may be pleasedto directthe X Junior}

¶17

Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad to dispose of the l.A. No. 253 of 2018 in OS. No. 2925 of 2016 as expeditiously as possible.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VADEENDRA JOSHI

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE UJJAT BHUYAN C.R.P.No. 500 of 2022

¶23

Order:

¶24

Heard Mr. Vadeendra Joshi, leamed counsel for the petirioner.

¶25

2 Petitioner as the plaintiff has instituted the related suit being O.S.No.2925 of 201.6 pending before the C-oun of the XJunior Gvil Judge,^{Gty Gvil C-ourt,Hyderabad.}

¶26

The suit has been instituted for eviction of the defendanr and for pal,rnent of arrears of rent as weli as for mesne profit. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner had filed an interlocutory application under Order XV-A of the Code of Gvil Procedure, 1908 (CPq, which was registered as I.ANo.443 of 2017. The same was contested by the respondent. After hearing the marrer, leamed coun belor,, allorved the said IA ride order dated 14.02.2Afi by directing the respondent to paythe arrears of rent of Rs.8O,OOO/- and monthly rent from May, 2016 till the date of the order @ Rs.1O,OOO/- per month within rhiny dap and thereafter ro pay the future monthly

¶27

¶28

rent @ Rs.10,000/- per month on or before iO,t day of the succeeding month.

¶29

Alleging that respondenr has not complied with the order dated L4.02.2018, petitioner has filed a fresh interiocutory application

¶30

under Order XVA CPC for striking off the defence of the respondent. The said interiocutoryapplication has been registered as I.ANo.253 of 2018. Respondent has filed objection to the said interlocutory application. However, grievance of the petitioner is that for one reason or the o.ther, I.ANo.253 of 2018 has not been finally heard and decided.

¶31

According to leamed counsel for the petitioner, more than

¶32

sixty ad.ioumments have been taken by the respondenr. However, no urgencyhas been shown bythe leamed court below

¶33

Flaving heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and on due consideration, it is hereby, directed that the coun of the X Junior GvilJudge, Gty Gvil Court, Hyderabad, shall take up I.A.No.253 of 2018 in O.S.No.2925 of 2016 and decide the same expeditiously, and at any rate, within a period of three monrhs from the date of

¶34

¶35

¶36

receipt of a copy of this order. No opinion has been expressed on

¶37

merit and all contentions are kept open.

¶38

Cvil Revision Pedtion is, accordingly, disposed of. Related

¶39

interlocutoryapplications, pending if any, also stand disposed of.

¶40

No costs.

¶41

SD/-T.KRISHNA KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPYII SECTId$!, FICER To, 1. The X JuniorCivil Judge, City Civil Court, Hvderabad. 2. One CC to Sri Vadeendra Joshi, Advocate tOpUCl 3. Two CD Copies 4. One Spare Copy gbrv

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1510312022

ORDER

CRP.No.500 of 2022

)\
(
oc 84 lui,i I ii22
,I6)
4+
.:r
<br>

¶47

DISPOSING OF THE CRP
WITHOUT COSTS
$/
",r

Lokanandhi Lalith Shankar v. Dr. Rabindranath.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokanandhi Lalith Shankar v. Dr. Rabindranath.C.

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

C.M. Ramesh Vs the State of Telangana

Mrs. K. Kameswari Vs State of Telangana

Smt. Tatineni Mayuri Vs Shri Edara Baldev

Sri Jagapathi Mahesh Vs Jadata Ravindra and 15 others

M/s. C.V. Ramaniah and Company, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and another