Dismissed

M/s. Matrusree Nagar Residents Welfare Association v. Mr. Vinay Vangala and 4 others

Telangana HC20 Oct 2022WA/682/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge bench of the High Court of Telangana dismissed an interlocutory application for condonation of delay in filing a writ appeal against an interim order. The court also dismissed the writ appeal itself on the appellant's withdrawal, leaving no pending miscellaneous matters open.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory Application and Writ Appeal dismissed on withdrawal; miscellaneous applications pending subsequently stand closed.

M/s. Matrusree Nagar Residents Welfare… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32e5 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGA,NA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

l.A.NO.1 0F 2022

¶8

IN/AND

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO: 682 OF 2022

¶10

Writ Appeal under clause l5 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 2510312022 passed in the W.P.No.1 5292 ot 2022 on the file of the High Court.

¶11

Between

¶12

M/s. Matrusree Nagar Residents Welfare Association, Matrusree Nagar Miyapur, Ranga Reddy Rep. by its lt4ember, Adhoc Committee S.Veerabhadra Rao, S/o Late Suryanarayana, aged 67 years, Occ. Retd. Associate Professor, R/o Flat 303, Plot No.372, Vrindavan Heights, Sector-1, lvlatrusree Nagar, lt/iyapur, Hyderabad.

¶13

...APPELLANT

¶14

AND

¶15

Vt Yinay^{Vangala, S/o WN Charyaged 36 years, Occ.Private Employee} Rl/o Flat No.403, Sri Manikanta Plot No.717 and717A, Matrusrinagar Miyapur, Hyderabad - 500 049.

¶16

The State of Telangana, l\rlunicipal Administration Department BRKR Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Principal Secretary

¶17

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner.

¶18

fhe Zonal Commissioner- Serilingampally, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Chanda Nagar, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad.

¶19

.r:

¶20

The Deputy Commissioner-Circle 21 , Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Chanda Nagar, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad.

¶21

,..RESPONDENTS

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

¶24

¶25

condone the delay of 176 days in filing the present writ Appeal challenging the lnterim order dated 25.03.2022 in w.p.No.1s292 of 2022 passed by the learned single judge of this Hon'ble Court

¶26

Counsel for the Appellant : SRl.p.SHlV KUMAR

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Gp FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 : SRI.M.A.K.MUKHEED

¶30

The Court made the following ORDER

¶31

.!:

¶32

I I

¶33

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF^{JUSTICEUJJALBHITYAN}

¶34

AND

¶35

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR^REDDY

¶36

I.A.No.1 of 2O22

¶37

ln and

¶38

WRIT APPEAL No.682 of 2022

¶39

JUDGMENT: Pet ttle^{Hon'ble theChiefJustice Ujjal BhuAan)}

¶40

Heard Mr. P.Shiv Kumar, iearned^{counselfor the} appellant; Mr. Nandigam^{KrishnaRao, learned counsel for} respondent No.1; Mr. Pasham^{KrishnaReddy,learned} Government Pleader for^{respondent No.2;and} Mr. M.A.K.Mukheed,^{learned counselfor respondents No.3} to 5.

¶41

I.A.No. 1 of 2022 has^{been filed seeking to condone} the deiay of 176 days in^{filing the related writ appeal.}

¶42

The writ appeal^{has been preferredagainstthe} interim order dated 25.03.2022^{passed by the learned} Single Judge in W.P.No.75292^{of 2022.}

¶43

After hearing the matter^{at some length, during the} course of which this Court^prima facie^{indicatedthat it is}

¶44

¶45

not inclined to erltertain the writ^{appeal, learned courtsel}

¶46

(

¶47

for the appella.nt sceks leave^{to rvithdraw the writ.appeal,}

¶48

In view of the above, the interlocutory^{applicationand}

¶49

the writ appeal are dismissed^{on withdrawal.}

¶50

Miscellaneous appiications^{pending,i[arry, shail}

¶51

stand closed. However,^{thereshall be no order as to costs.}

¶52

SD/. K.SAILESHI DEPUTY EEqIqTRAR //rRUE coPY/r -4.f^{'C\ t\ >>} SECTION-OFFtCER

¶53

¶54

One^{CC to Sri P. Shiv Kumar' Advocate[OPUC] .^-} i. il; cc io^{sti Nanoigamkrishna Rao' Advoc^ateIo.PUCl} 6 6il" 66 i;^{s;; rtr. n. R. Mukheed, Advocate(Qiqcl} d rwo ccs to GP^ror. urn,"lJaiiii'iiiiitt"tit"l^{High court for the state of} Telangana^{at HYderabad [OUT]} 5. Two CD^CoPies

S.A. GJ

HIGH COURT

DATED:2011012022

ORDER

!.A.NO.1 0F 2022 !N / AND WA.No.682 of 2022

¶60

ir'-
l:
{: [ 7 J[1,i 2m
i..r,

¶61

,r l.A. AND W.A. ARE DISMISSED

¶62

@ cR'"2
,.*"r#
-/ 3)/^*a
'Z';-r<t
t /.17^

M/s. Matrusree Nagar Residents Welfare Association v. Mr. Vinay Vangala and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Matrusree Nagar Residents Welfare Association v. Mr. Vinay Vangala and 4 others

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

Kanuri Family Trust, repby its Chairman Sri Murali Vs The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (Huda), Paigah

V.Brahmachari, Died per Lrs 2 to 7 R.R District and amp Another Vs K.Shankaraiah, R.R Dist and 7 Others

M/S.R.S.Rangadas Vs the Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax

Anitha Gannarapu Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

M/s. Hci Technocrats Vs The State of Telangana and 4others

The State of Telangana Vs M/s. V.R. Constructions