Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Smt v. Pochamma Vs Pentaiah — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

Home
Telangana HC
2023
Smt v. Pochamma Vs PentaiahSmt v. Pochamma v Pentaiah

Dismissed

Smt v. Pochamma v Pentaiah

Telangana HC9 Jun 2023AS/761/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to apply again upon restoration. No substantive decision was delivered.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to apply.

What the court decided

AI extract

A

[^321s ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RAOHA RANI

A.S NO: 761 OF 2005

Appeal Under Section 96 of C.p.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated: 2918120005 in o.s No. 143 of I 998 on the file of the court of the lV Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge -cum - XVI Additional chief Judge Nampaly Hyderabad.

Between:

1 Smt .V Pochamma, Wo: Late Basanth Rao, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Housewife,

V. Soorayya, S/o: Late V. Basanth Rao, aged about 66years, Occ: Service

( Both are No 15-2-121 and 122, Gowliguda Chaman, Hyderabad)

.,.APPELLANT/PLAINTIFFS

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Smt. V. Pochamma and V. Soorayya
respondent
Pentaiah, V. Yadagiri, V. Pandu, and Smt. Devamma

Coram

AI extract

G.Rao ha rani

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Telangana HC
Decided on: 9 Jun 2023 · June
Registered: 23 Dec 2005
Case no.: AS/761/2005

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from G.radha Rani

Jan Shah Vs P.Venkata Raoand Ors.
8 Jun 2023
Midde Yellaiah Vs Dr.N.Pulla Reddy
7 Jun 2023
N.Ramesh Kumar Vs Bm.,Sbi.,Balanagar,Rr Dist and 2 Ors.
6 Jun 2023
Bajaj Allianz Gen Ins Co. Ltd., Hyderabad Vs Munjala Mallesham, Warangal Dist and 2 Others
9 Jun 2023

Cite this judgement

Smt v. Pochamma v Pentaiah, AS/761/2005 (TEL), decided on 9 June 2023.

The High Court for the State of Telangana publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Bench / Coram

G.Rao ha rani

Parties & counsel

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to apply.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the counsel for the appellants with liberty to apply for restoration. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, stood closed.

A compact analysis

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.

AND

Pentaiah, S/o: Babaiah. Aged about4S years, Occ: Business R/o l2-1_1035, Old Mallepatly, Hyderabad'

V. Yadagiri, S/o: Late V. Anajaiah, aged about 49 years, Occ: Service

V. Pandu, S/o: V. Anjaiah, aged about 46 years, Occ: Service

Smt Devamma, Wo: Late Anjaiah, aged about 65 years, Occ: Housewife

Respondents No. 2 to 4 are the R/o 15-2_121, Gowliguda Chaman,, Hyderabad

(Defendant No.4 died pending suit per LRs defendant No.3 & 4)

...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. B. SHANKER Counsel for the Respondents: - Counsel for the Respondents: The Court Delivered the following: JUDGMENT

THt.t Hot,()t tt.\ ut_ l. I)IT..'UST'ICE (;. T{AI)HA RANI

A.S.\o.76l of 2005

.ltJD(;\ ll]N',t':

-l'his Appcal is rrrccr br rrrc rr,|eUants to set aside the judgnrent and decree dated 29 08 20Q-5 passod i, ().S.N. I 1r of'l99g by the IV Additionar Merropolitan Sc'ssio,s.ludgc-cunr-X'lll .\tltlitr.,ril (.'ie,{.Judge, Nampalll., Flyderabad.

). Whc'n the txattc- is rrkcrr up lirl- hg311r*, leamed counsel lor the appellant subnrittcd that the' r'r'e .c Lr.uhrc to ,-.()rtirct thcir client and sought permission to withdraw thc appcar * i rr a Iihcrrr rr) rrc l.cstoration petition w.henevcr their clicnts come in contact \ ith thoni.

Perrnission is accor.dccl

Accordingll,, tlre.,\ppcal is disnrissccj as withdrawn with a liberry as prayed lor. No or.der as to costs.

M isceilaneous applicarions pcnd irr; in this appeal. if any, shall stand closed.

\

//,RUE copy// "8",,j&r#JAytXil

To, 1 2 3 iT:',ffi^{ilffi,{#.iH[TH+68'#c"*usA::;'=#::'"} TJ

B

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910612023

JUDGMENT

AS.No.761 of 2005

z'1 T)\tc,.
\ 'I
't\t<br>ta
1,)
lU '\h'
\ ,,.,
d.t/
',, '-. j/
ri1 'r'11L-

DISMISSING THE A.S AS WITHDRAWN

@rqi$

CNR

HBHC010412672005

Topic

Civil Procedure and Limitation

Bench

Disposal

WITHDRAWN

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Mrs. S.B. Vedavalli

9 Jun 2023

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Gaikwad Pushpa and 5 Others

9 Jun 2023