Second Appeal against eviction suit judgment dismissed as infructuous as the subject matter became so because the subject flat had already been evicted by the defendant.
The Second Appeal was dismissed as infructuous with no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURTFORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE TENTHDAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
SECOND APPEAL NO:695OF 2014
Appeal under Section 100 ofCPC against the Judgmentand decree dated o2to6l2o14 made in ASNo.1140f 2o'120n the file of the courtof the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City CivilCourt, Hyderabad preferred against the Judgment and decreein os No.3176 0f 2o1odated16103t20120n the file of the court of the lll Juniorcivil Judge, City Civil Court,at Hyderabad.
Between:
V.Rambabu Naidu,
,..APPELLANT
AND
Talluri Jailaxmi Rao,
.,.RESPONDENT
For the Appellant : SRIK.CHIDAMBARAM,Advocate
For the Respondent: SRI RAMCHANoRARAOGURRAM' Advocate
The Court delivered thefollowing:JUDGI,4ENT
HON'BLE SMT JUSTTCE P.SREE SUDHA
S.A.No.695 OF 2014
IUDGMENT:
Miscellaneous peritions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
Sd/-B.S.CH IRANJEEVI JOINT R EGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//
To SECTION OFFICER 1 Jf;u ooon,onal chief Judse, Ciry civit court, Hydera bad. (with records, if 2. 3. 4. 5. dsl'[i,;rui;iii{i#:::"' o_ Kj ';iffi
SECTION OFFICER
HIGH COURT
OAlEDt10l0312022
1 e s TA re
)
.-)
iJ 2 1 iljt,l 2022 o
+
IJA1
JUDGMENT
SA.No.695 of 2014
DISMISSING THE SA AS INFRUCTUOUS.
(.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
V.Rambabu Naidu
Talluri Jailaxmi Rao
P. Sree Sudha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
