Dismissed

Sarasam Rama Laxmi v. Cap Ggk Raju (Died)

Telangana HC20 Nov 2023AS/97/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order rejecting an Interim Application for condoning delay in filing an appellate suit. The appellant failed to comply with previous orders after multiple extensions, leading the court to presume lack of interest. Consequently, the appeal suit was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of IA for condonation of delay; Rejection of Appeal Suit; No order as to costs.

Sarasam Rama Laxmi Vs Cap Ggk Raju (Died) — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶7

IN & AND

¶8

APPEAL SUIT NO: 97 OF 2019

¶9

Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C. aggrieved by the^judgment and decree dated 05-06-2018 passed in the OS.NO.582 of 2O1O on the file of the lll Additional District Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Smt. Sarasam Rama Laxmi @ Rajya Laxmi D/o Late lvl. Muthaiah W/o Late S. Yadi Reddy, Aged 50 years, Occ-Housewife, Rr/o Plot No.105, Flat No.5, Sri Venkatasai Residency, Subash Nagar, IDA Jeedimetla Mandal, R.R. District.

¶12

...APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF

¶13

AND

¶14

CAP.GGKRAJU

¶15

(q ied, the defendant No.3 to 6 brought on record as per order in lA NO.1 143 of 2012. dt.20-06-2013)

¶16

S|nt. D. Ramulamma (q ied, the defendant No.7 and 8 brought on record as^per order in lA No.564 of 2016, dt.02-03-2016)

¶17

GS Roshan Raju, S/o Late Cap.GGK Raju, Aged about 43 years, OccAgriculture, R:/o. Flat No.302, Mahalaxmi Paradise, Road No.3, West Maredpally, Secunderabad.

¶18

Gopala Ranga Raju, S/o Late Cap. GGK Raju, Aged about 41 years, OsftccAgriculture.

¶19

G. Sridhar Raju, S/o Late Cap. GGK Raju, Aged about 36 years, OccService.

¶20

Mrs. G. Sridevi, Wo Wing Commander, GVNK Varma D/o. Late Cap. GGK Raju, Aged about 36 years, Occ- Agriculture .

¶21

-- "----7

¶22

¶23

The Respondent No.3 to 6 Ryo 175, AWHO Colony, Sector-A, Secunderabad500 009.

¶24

7 D. Narsimha, S/o Late Laxmaiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ- Agriculture, H.No.2-73, R/o Shamirpet (V) and (M), R.R. District.

¶25

I D. Krishna, S/o Late Laxmaiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. H.N0.2-66l7, Shamirpet (V) & (M), and R.R. Distritt.

¶26

... RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶27

IA NO 1 F 2019

¶28

Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone delay of 156 days in preferring the above appeal.

¶29

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. M. JANARDHAN RAO

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6: SRl. SRINIVAS POLAVARAPU

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 7 & B: SRI AKKAM ESHWAR

¶32

The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶33

¶34

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE^{M.G.PRIYADARSINI}

¶35

I.A.No.1 OF 20L9 IN AND APPEAL SUIT No. 97 0F^20L9

¶36

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶37

Learned counsel^{for the appellant soughttime to comply} with the orders dated^{16.08.2023passed in I'A'No' I of 2Ol9'}

¶38

However, a perusal^{of proceedingsheet discloses that in} spite of giving^{fair opportunities on the earlierseveral occasions} i.e., en 21.Og.2023,^{16.70-2023,the appellant failed to comply} with the orders dated^16.08-2023.

¶39

The proceeclirrg sheet further^{disclosesthat the time} granted for deposit of costs^{was extendedon O7' 11'2023 in} I.A.No. 1 of 2019. Still the^{appellant seeks further time to} comply with the conditional^{orders.Hence, it is presumed that} the appellant is not^{interested to proceed with the appeal'}

¶40

Therefore, the I.A.No.^{1 of 20 19 filed for condoning the} delay of 156 days in^{preferring the appeal is hereby dismissed'}

¶41

Consequently, the^{AppealSuit is rejected' There shallbe} no order as to costs.

¶42

Miscellaneous applicatiorls,^{ifany, pendingshallstand}

¶43

closed.

¶44

SD/- SRI K. SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The lll Additional^{DistrictJudge, R.R. Districtat L.B- Nagar} 2 One CC to SRl.^{[,1. JANARDHAN RAO, Advocate [OPUC]} One CC to SRl. SRINIVAS^{POLAVARAPU,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶49

4 One CC to SRl. AKKAM^{ESHWAR,Advocate} [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies

¶50

+------'+--<=-r-.--sjr---,ji-{;il

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2011112023

JUDGMENT

!.A.NO. 1 0F 2019 IN & AND AS.No.97 of 2019

¶55

1 $E sT{ rcf
(
c
ooJ 0 I ,iA !\i 2024 oz
,J^L

gO
t P C

¶56

REJECTING THE APPEAL^SUIT

Sarasam Rama Laxmi v. Cap Ggk Raju (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarasam Rama Laxmi v. Cap Ggk Raju (Died)

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

The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Bodukuri Sammaiah and 2 Others

Papitham Mary and 3 Others Vs Union of India

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. C. Susheelamma and 2 Others

E. Anjamma and 6 Others Vs Md. Habeebuddin and Another

Smt.P.Sarala Timothy Vs Smt Kasarapu Anantha Laxmi and 2 Others

M/S.Totaram Papalal Sons Vs Smt. Imrana Qutubuddin