Dismissed
Suresh Kumar Gupta v. Mohd Imran Ahmed
Telangana HCSA/813/2014
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT…
What the court decided
AI extract
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT…
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 COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF IVARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
SECOND APPEAL NO: 813 OF 2014
Appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and decree dated 91912014 made in AS No.'1 22 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the X Additlonal District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar,preferred against the decree in OS No.2359 of 2009 dated0410212013 on thefile of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
Between:
Suresh Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Pyarelal Gupta, Aged about 61Years,Occ: Business, R/o Plot No.l , Street No.S, Bhavani Nagar, Nacharam,HMTNagar, Hyderabad.
...APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ DEFENDANT AND
Mohd lmran Ahmed, S/o tt4ohd lsmail Aged about 43Years ,Occ: Business, Rlo 4-4- 92, Nawaz Plaza, HIVT Nagar, Nacharam,Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF
SAMP. NO: 2303 0F 2014
Petition under Section 151 of CPCprayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, theHigh Court may be pleased to stayall the furtherproceedings in EP No. 55 of 2014,on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar.
For the Appellant : SRI ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL,Advocate
For the Respondent : SRI R.A.ACHUTHANAND,Advocate
The Court *de the following: ARDLA:
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P, SREE SUDHA
SECO ND APPEA L No.8'13 of 2014
ORDER
When the moiter is token up for heoring, lhere is no representotion for the oppellont.
Leorned counsel oppeoring for the respondent submitted thot the couse in ihe Second Appeol hos become infructuous. ln view of the obove submission, the Second Appeol is
dlsmissed os infructuous. No costs.
Pending miscelloneous opplicolions, if ony, sholl slond
closed.
Sd/.CH.VENKATESWARULU DEPU R GISTRAR
,TRUE COPY'
SECTIONOFFICER
To 1 . The XlAdditional Districtand Sessions(lTC)FAC.X Additional Districtand #;il;J;;se,(rrc)at Ransa Reddv-DistriclqtL'B Nasar" 2 ffiHi;".ip;'iju'nlorcivir juog;, n'ngd ReddvDstrict at L B Nagar 3. o;;'iC'iJsii-AsrrotKumarAsarwalAdvocate(oPUC) 4. 5'nE 6d i; 5;ili.AA"hJthanan-"d Advocate(oPUC) . Two CDCoPies o. One SPareCoPY
HIGH COURT
DATED:0710312022
1 tlE S T4 I{:
o 0 7 JUr{ 2[22 a
*
Pt{i
JUDGMENT
SA.No.813 of 2014
Dismissing the SA as infructuous without costs.
&
in"
w)
Suresh Kumar Gupta
Mohd Imran Ahmed
P. Sree Sudha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court