Disposed

K. Padmabham and 3 others v. Sri. Jai Kumar , Deepak Kumar

Telangana HC12 Apr 2022CRP/726/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petitioners sought intervention under Article 226/227 regarding the pending appeal in a suit for possession. The Court directed the Additional Chief Civil Judge to hear and decide the appealing matter within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to hear and decide A.S. No. 29 of 2021 within six months from the date of receipt of the order.

K. Padmabham and 3 others Vs Sri. Jai Kumar , Deepak… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF^APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^UJJALBHUYAN

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 726 OF²ⁿ²²

¶6

Between:

¶7

K. Padmabham, S/o late K.V.Pandarinath,^{aged about66 years} ,^Occ.Pvt service, Rl/o H. No.4-2-1 035^{Ramkote Hyderabad,TS}

¶8

K.Rajeshwari, W/o K. Harinath,^{age a6out 56 years} ,^{Occ.Housewife,R/o}

¶9

H.No.4-2-1035 Ramkote Hyderabad,^TS

¶10

K. Ravindhernath, S/o^{latA K. V. Pandarinath,aged about58 years, Occ'} business, R/o H.No.3-5-1030/4^{Kachiguda X road Hyderabad,TS}

¶11

K. Samfoornam, S/o. late^{K.V.Pandarinath,aged about 56 years, Occ.} Teacher'R/oHNo'3-5-'1030/4Kachiguda ...pertrtoNEFypETrroNERS

¶12

AND

¶13

Sri. Jai Kumar @ Deepak Kumar,^{S/o Sri Nandlal, age 42 years, Occ.} Business, RJo. Fi ruo a-s- t¹ 30/2 Ka ch^{i g} ud, )..'f; Eg.i J,{g?i,??fl,=L?o^{* o} =^*,

¶14

Petition under Article 227 of^{the constitutionof lndia aggrieved by the order} dated 04.08.2021 in 1.A.No.431^{ol 2021 in A.S.No.29of 2011 on the file of the} Court of the XXVI Additional^{chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.}

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be pleased to suspend the} operation of order and decree^{dated.04lo8l2021 in I A No.431 of 202'l in AS No.29} of 2021^passed by the Honorable^{xxvl Additional chief Judge,city civil courts at} Hyderabad TS,^pending disposal^{of the aboveCRP.}

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI BETHI^{VENKATESWARLU}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent:^NONEAPPEARED

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN

¶21

¶22

I I

¶23

CTVIL REVISI ON PETITI ON No.72 6 0F 2022

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard Mr. B.Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the revision petitioners.

¶26

2 Revision petitioners as plaintiffs had instituted O.S.No.1593 of 2013 before the XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for possession of the suit scheduie property which is a mulgi to an extent of 516 sq. yards. By^judgment and decree dated 10.03.202 1, the suit was decreed by directing the defendant to handover vacant possession of the suit schedule mulgi to the plaintiffs within three months.

¶27

3 Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, respondent (defendant) preferred appeal before the XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, being A.S.No.29 of 2021. Defendant as the appellant also filed a petition under Order 41 Rue 5 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (CPC) to stay the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2021 passed in O.S.No.1593 of 2013. The said petition was registered as I.A.No.431 of 202I.

¶28

4 By the order dated 04.08.202 1, Iearned iower appellate

¶29

proceedings in respect of handing^{over possession of the suit} schedule mulgi to the^{plaintiffs by the appellant till disposalof} the appeai, subject to^{paymentof monthlyrent on or beforesth} day of every calendar^month.

¶30

5 After hearing the matter at^{somelength, learned counsel} for the revision^{petitioners (plaintiffs) submits that the suit is of} the year 2013; therefore,^{the appealshould be decided, one way} or the other, expeditiouslY.

¶31

6 After hearing learned^{counsel for the revisionpetitioners} and on due consideration,^{Court is of the view that the appeal} filed against the^judgment and^{decree dated10.03'2021should} be heard and decided expeditiously.

¶32

7 Accordingly, learned )(XVI Additional^{Chief Judge, City} Civil Court, Hyderabad, is^{hereby directed to hear anddecide} A.S.No.29 of 2O2l within a^{period of six monthsfrom the date of} receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

8 Revision petition is accordingly^{disposed of. No order as to} costs. Miscellaneous^petitions if^{any pendingin this revision} petition sha-11 stand closed.

¶34

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

Cy:,

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To 1. 2 IX?S"i#l'g""?f,^{J,?Jl?',iJS:f /'9":l3rtF'!8i} |) Two CD^CoPies 4 One SPare^CoPY sbr $r:-z

erabad.

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1210412022

ORDER

CRP.No.726 of 2022

.,. iru S iA l-5
(;+
?
MIfl 2[?-2
',J \1:o '04
\ ::' i'l
-..-.:'-

¶46

DISPOSING OF THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS

¶47

¶48

\t I

K. Padmabham and 3 others v. Sri. Jai Kumar , Deepak Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Padmabham and 3 others v. Sri. Jai Kumar , Deepak Kumar

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

Sri. Gagiri Hari Krishna Vs M/s Jasper Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Neela Satyanarayana Vs Mr. R.Subrahmanvam

Pvp Capital Limited Vs M/s Parameswara Art Productions

Yerra Nagesh Vs Y.Anasuya

Church of South India Trust Association Vs Dr.P.Jonathan Dharmaraj

Church of South India Trust Association Vs Dr.P.Jonathan Dharmaraj