Allowed

Katakam Prashanth v. Rayagiri Narsimulu

Telangana HC12 Sept 2022TRCMP/187/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Transfer Civil Misc. Petition sought to withdraw a pending motor vehicle cases application from Secunderabad to Hyderabad. The petitioner established service via counsel. Finding justification due to respondent absence and the existence of a related pending case in the target court, the petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

MVOP No.366 of 2022 ordered to be withdrawn from Secunderabad and transferred to the Court of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Katakam Prashanth Vs Rayagiri Narsimulu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶5

TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETI TION NO: 187 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Katakam Prashanth, S/o Shankar Aged 35 yrs Occ. Business R/o H No.g_l68. Goseva Mandal Road, Mancherial, Mancheriil Diskict, Telangana

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 R_ayagiri Narsimulu, S/o R. Yellaiah Aged 44yrsOcc. Labour, R/o H.No.1 10,

¶11

Mutrajpally village, Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet bistrict, Telangana.

¶12

2 M Ramachandram, S/o M. Balakistaiah Aged S0 yrs Occ. Business, R/o H No.2-35, Mutrajpally village, Gajwel Manidal, Siddipet Diskict, Tetangana.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition Under section 24 of the c.p.c. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to transfer the N/voP 366 of 2022 on the file of I Additional chief Judge court, al Secunderabad, to the Hon'ble lll Additional chief Judge ,court city civit court Hyderabad

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶16

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all other proceedings in MVop 366 of 2022 on the fiie of Hon bre 'tst Addl chief Judge court, at secunderabad pending disposal of the above petition

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. PEMMARAJU SRIVALLI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY TRANSFER CTVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.187 0F 2022

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heard learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner. Perused the record and Memo filed on O8.O9.2O22 along with postal track consignment report wherein it is confirmed that the personal notice sent to respondents was returned unserved with the endorsement "addressee absent" but the notice was served on learned counsel for the respondent Nos. I and 2 before the trial Court. Be it stated that since the notice is served on both the respondents through their counsel before the trial Court, it is treated as proper ser..,ice. Both the respondents called absent without any representation and hence, they are set ex-parte.

¶23

This Transler Civil Miscellaneous Petition is frled under Section 24 of Civil Procedutre Code (for short 'CPC) by the petitioner against the respondents herein with a prayer to withdraw MVOP No.366 of 2022, pending on the lile of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and to transfer the same to the Court ol the III Additional Chief Judge,

¶24

AVR.J TT.CMP 187 2022

¶25

¶26

City Civit Court,^{Hyderabad wherein MVOP No'494 of 2022'} arising out of^{same accident, is pending on the file of that Court'}

¶27

Perused the record and^{the avernents of supporting} affidavit. Having regard^{to the fact that the respondent Nos'1} and 2 remained^{absent without any representationand they} were set ex-parte^{alrd also consideringthe submissionsmadeby} learned counsel^{for the petitionerttrat MVOPNo'494of 2022} ' pending on the tile^{of the learnedIII Additional ChiefJudge, City} Civil Court, Hyderabad^{is also arising out of the same accident} in Crime No. 16 of 2022,^{I find somejustificationin the request} of the petitioner.

¶28

In the result, this^{Transfer Civil Miscellaneous} Petition is allowed,^{MVOP No.366 of 2O22, pending on the file of} thelAdditiona-lChiefJudge,CityCivilCourt,Secunderabadis ordered to be u,ithdrawn^{and transferredto the Court of the} learned III Additional^{Chief Judge,City Civil Court, Hyderabad'} to be tried along^{with MVOP No.494 of 2022, pendingon the file} of that Court^{for disposal in accordance with law' LearnedI} Additional Chief^{Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabadshall} .,. transmit the entire case^{recordsin MVOP No'366'dl-2022'dttly}

¶29

AVR,J rr.CMP 187 2O22

¶30

¶31

indexed, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions

¶32

if any, pending in this Tr.CMP, shall stand closed.

¶33

SD/. T. KRISHNA KUMAR DEPUTY RECIqTRAR //TRUE COPY/I .. ,,: .^.. \ SECTION OFFICER^</sup>

¶34

To,

¶35

The I Additional Chief Judge Court, at Secunderabad^. 2. The lll Additional Chief Judge ,Court City Civil Court Hyderabad .

¶36

1 One CC to SRl. PEMMARAJU SRIVALLI Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies CDL GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210912022

ORDER

TR.C.M.P.No.1 87 of 2022

¶41

E STAI€
(.
I I I'10! ?[il?
- :,:----,2

¶42

ALLOWI\C Iill. It( ( \t l,

¶43

i )L--

Katakam Prashanth v. Rayagiri Narsimulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Katakam Prashanth v. Rayagiri Narsimulu

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

M. Jaya Rao Vs Smt. Sadasivuni Kamala

Mr.Joseph Dcruz Vs Smt. Maria Marlyn

Escorts Ltd. and Another Vs Ap Forest Dev Corp. and Another

Shri Upender Vemula Vs Smt. Archana Vemula , Pasunoori

Banothu Mangya Vs Malothu Rajaram

Smt. Gurujala Harini Vs Sri. Nagrjuna Davuluri