Disposed

Taduka Suman v. Alia Dhanunjaya

Telangana HC7 Mar 2022CRP/84/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court directed the trial court to decide the underlying suit within three months and ordered parties to maintain status quo with the suit schedule property.

What did the court decide?

Defined trial court's duty to dispose of suit in O.S. No. 176 of 2018 within three months; parties directed to maintain status quo.

Taduka Suman Vs Alia Dhanunjaya — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 84 OF 2022

¶6

Petition under Afiicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated. 03.12.2021 passed in CMA.No. 6 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, at Huzurabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Taduka Suman, S/o Sadanandam, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Pvt. Service, R/o,Shanlgaram Village, Kamalapur Mandal, Warangal Urban District.

¶9

Taduku Sadanandam, S/o. Basahaiah, Aged about 67 years, Occ. Agriculture,

¶10

Taduku Srikanth, S/o. Samabaiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee,

¶11

Taduku Bharathi, Wo. Sadanandam, Age 58 years, Occ. Housewife, All are R/o.Shanigaram Village, Kamalapur Mandal, Warangal Urban Djstrict.

¶12

...Petitio ne rs/Res ponde nts

¶13

AND

¶14

1 AIia Dhanunjaya, S/0. Mallaiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Rtd. Employee, R/o.Shanigaram Village, Kamalapuram Mandl, Warangal District.

¶15

2 Alia Ravichander, S/o. Dhanunjaya, aged about 62 years, Occ. Rtd. Employee, R/o. Shanigaram Village, Kamalapuram [\ilandal, Warangal District. ...Respondents/Respondents

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the order and decree daled 031121202'1 in CMA.No. 6 of 2019^passed by the Senior Civil Judge, at Huzurabad, pending disposal of the C.R.P.,

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI S. CHALAPATHI RAO

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶22

CltrIL^REVISION PETITION No.84 of 2022

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Civil levision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filec by the petitioners/defendants, challenging the order, dated 03.12.20. 1, passed in CMA No.6 of 2019, by the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurab, d, whereby, the order, dated 03,06.2019, passed in I.A.No.599 of 2( 18 in o.s.No.176 or 2018 by the principal Junior civil Judge, Huzurabi d, declining to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents/plairtiffs, their legal heirs, administrators, servants, agents and work nen etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession over the petition schedule property, was set aside.

¶25

Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶26

Having m€ Je submissions for a considerable time, both the Iearned counsel cn record fairly conceded that a direction may be issued to the tria Court to dispose of the subject O.S.No.176 of 2018 pending on its filt, by directing the parties to maintain sfatus guo with regard to the suit schedule property, in all respects, tiil the disposal of the subject suit.

¶27

The said st bmission of both the learned counsel is taken on record.

¶28

Dr.SA, J cRP 8412022

¶29

¶30

5, Since it is fairly conceded by both the learned counsel on record that a direction may be issued to the trial Court to dispose of the subject suit in O.S.No.776 of 2018 pending on its file by maintaining status^quo till the disposal of the said suit, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, is directed to dispose of the subject suit in O.S.No.776 of 2018^pending on its Flle, within a^period of three⁽³⁾ months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. During the pencJency of the subject suit, both the parties are directed to maintain status^quo with regard to the suit schedule^property, in all respects. It is made clear that while determining the subject suit, the trial Court shall not get influenced by the observations made in the impugned order, dated 03.72.2021, passed in CMA No,6 of 2079, by the lower appellate Court as well as the order, dated 03.06.2019,^passed by it in I.A.No.599 of 2018 in the subject suit.

¶31

With the above observations/directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶32

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.

¶33

¶34

SD/- V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/i V To, SECTION OFFICER 1 . The Se-nior Civil Judge, at Huzurabad. 2 ,) il:33 [ 3[l':f|ifftrt]^{yo Advocateropucl} 4 IAR MADISETTY' Advocate tciPucl . Two cD copies MMK

\ ""

HIGH COt RT

DRSAJ

DATED:07 J3]2O2Z

ORDER

CRP.No.84 of ?022

Ila/1 1 $E ST.q I/j +
:'
D
ri 19 l'lirfl 2I2
t,:
r.i^
,,' i
'<br>

¶42

DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION

Taduka Suman v. Alia Dhanunjaya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taduka Suman v. Alia Dhanunjaya

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. Bonagiri Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana, And 7 Others

S. Surya Prakash Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Kola Indra Karan Vs Union of India

Sayan Chakravarthy Vs The State of Telangana

Thakur Seethal Singh Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Batchu Phani Kumar Vs The State of Telangana