Legally representative of a deceased sole appellant sought leave to withdraw the appeal suit. The High Court permitted the withdrawal based on affidavit and enclosure, disposing of the appeal suit as withdrawn without orders on costs.
Leave to withdraw Appeal Suit No.1295 of 2017 granted; appeal suit disposed of as withdrawn.
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.
--
[32181
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY
l.A. No. 4OF 2022
IN/AND
APPEAL SUIT NO: 1295 0F 2017
APPEAL SUIT NO: 1 295 0F 2017
Appeal under section 96 of cPC against and Judgment and Decree dated dated: 23.03.2017 passed in o.s.No. 7 of 2013 on the file of the court of the ll Additionat District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial.
Between:
fOnellantNo.2 is brought on recordsas LR of deceasedSole Appellant Viz., Mohd. llyas Ali Hazari as percourt orderdaied 16-03-2023 vide in l.A. No.3 of 2022made in A.S. No. 1295 ot2017. ...APPELLANT/DEFENDANT
AND
Naluvala Venkamma, Wo.Rajanna, aged about 48 years, Occ:Agriculture, Fl/o.Pembatla Village, Sarangapuram Mandal, Jagtial District, Tel-angana State.
...RESPONDEN/PLAINTIFF
lA No.4 oF 2022
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 permit the petitioner/appellant to withdraw the AS No.129512e17.
Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. MOHD MOIN AHMED QUADRI
Gounsel for the Respondent : None appeared
The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESH'U?.ARA REDDY
I.A.No.4 of 2022 In and APPEAL SUIT No. t29S OF 201.,,
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Hear,: ap1>ellant No.2 being the legal rt:presr: - tative of sole appeilant. )rL enquiry, she has stated that in vie u, of r.he death of her husl: errd she intend to take back(wrthrlrarv r the Appeal Suit and :t so made an enclorsement to th:rt t.: flecr on the grouna s o[ rppeal. Be it statecl that on 1(r.03.2O.23. she was brought on r,tc,)rd as legal representative oI s,rlt: appellant. Therefc,rc, n the above circumstances, t:or l; dering the submission:; a-rd the endorsement made on the aprt:al r;uit, this application I I I.A.No.4 of 2022 is allowed and thr: appellant is permitted to rvithdraw the Appeal Suit. Accord i I gly, Appeal Suit is rlispolerl of as q'ithdrawn.
How(),er, in the circumstances of the case, l lrr:re shall be no orders . rs r,o the costs, As a sequel, nrlscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stands closr:d.
\
To,
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- K SiRINIVASA RAO JI)INT REGISThAR q- S:CTION OFFICER
Nr--
HIGH COURT
DATED:2710312023
COMMON JUDGMEI T l.A. No. 4 OF 2022 IN/AND APPEAL SUIT NO: 1,t95 OF 2017
..-.-4, <br>I
i E APR 2[l3
,
<br>: A
Disposed A.S. as wil hdrawn
( 9
np
g, L1 l- Y.4,
1 issue framed by the court
Whether appellant No.2 is permitted to withdraw the Appeal Suit after being brought on records as legal representative of the deceased sole appellant.
A. VENEKATESHWARA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
