Dismissed

Syed Ameeruddin v. Mohammed Rasheed Ahmed

Telangana HC22 Nov 2023CMA/603/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal where appellants sought permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to pursue other remedies under law; High Court accorded permission and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw appeal with liberty to pursue other remedies granted; appeal dismissed as withdrawn; no order as to costs.

Syed Ameeruddin Vs Mohammed Rasheed Ahmed — Partition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 603 OF 2023

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 43 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC against the Order dated 23.09.2023 made in l.A.No. 159 ot 2023 in OS.No. 108 ol 2021 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Vikarabad District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1. Syed Ameeruddin, S/o. Syed Shabhuddin Aged about 61 Years, Occ. Agriculture Rt/o. H No. 1-15, Marepally Village Peddemul Mandal, Vikarabad District.

¶10

Syed Jamaluddin, S/o. Syed Shabhuddin, Aged about 46 Years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. H No. 1-39, Marepally Village, Pedemul Mandal, Vikarabad District.

¶11

Syed Jaheeruddin, S/o. Syed Shabhuddin Aged about 46 Years, Occ. Agriculture Rl/o. H No. 1-39, Marepally Village, Peddemul Mandal, Vikarabad District-

¶12

Syed Qayyum, S/o. Syed Shabhuddin Aged about 37 Years Occ. Agriculture R:/o. H No. 1-55/4, Marepally Village, Peddemul Mandal, Vikarabad District-

¶13

Syed Mukrrum, S/o. Syed Munawwar, Aged about 27 Years Occ. Business, R:/o. H No. 1-39/1, Marepally Village, Peddemul Mandal, Vikarabad District.

¶14

Syed Mahmood, S/o. Syed Shabhuddin Aged about 52 Years Occ. Busine is RJo. H No- 1-39, Marepally Village. Peddemul Mandal, Vikarabad District.

¶15

...Petitioners/ Petitioners/Defendants

¶16

AND

¶17

'1. Mohammed Rasheed Ahmed, S/o- Mohammed Quadeer Ahmed, Aged about 34 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. H No. 12-2-36123, Asif Nagar, Zeba Bagh Hyderabad.

¶18

...RespondenURespondenUPlaintiff

¶19

The Tahsildar, Peddemul Mandal, Vikarabad Districl.

¶20

...RespondenU RespondenUDefendant No.7

¶21

IANO:1OF2 023

¶22

Petrtion under Section^{151 of CPC praying} that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all furlher proceedings^pursuant to the ex parte decree and judgment dated 05.01.2023 passed in O.S No. 108 ot 2021 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District pending disposal of the main C.M.A.

¶23

Counsel for Appellants : Sri KOPPULA GOPAL

¶24

Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Sri^V. SATYAM^REDDY

¶25

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶26

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICEABHINANDKUMAR SHAVILI} AND THE HON'BLE sRI^{JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO} c L I E NE APPEAL N

¶27

JUDGMENT:^{(Per AKS,J)}

¶28

Learned^{counselfor the appellants seeks permissionof this} Court to^{withdrawthe CivilMiscellaneousAppealwith a libertyto} the appellants^{to pursue the remedies in accordancewith law.}

¶29

Permission^{is accorded.}

¶30

Granting^{liberty as sought for, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal} is dismissed as withdrawn.^{There shall be no order as to costs.}

¶31

Miscellaneous^{Applications,ifany, pending in this Civil}

¶32

M isce Ila neoqs, Appeal,^{shall standclosed.}

¶33

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA o JOINT REGIST R

//TRUE COPY//

sEcTtoN o CER

To,

The Principal^{District Judge, Vikarabad District.(with records,} if any) 2_ One CC to^{Sri KOPPULAGOPAL, Advocate} [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri^{V. SATYAM REDDY,Advocate} [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies Bgv/nj b t-{r

HIGH COURT

DATED:2211112023

!ir

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.603 of 2023

DISMISSING THE APPEAL AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS

¶44

2-<br>7o k\"

Syed Ameeruddin v. Mohammed Rasheed Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Ameeruddin v. Mohammed Rasheed Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Showraiah Vs B. Gopalu

The State of Telangana Vs M Balraj

Pashupathi Rao Vs The Government of India/Union of India

Union of India Vs D.S. Rajendernath

K.Dhanunjaya Reddy, Hyd Vs Rajiv Udyogasri Society, Hyd and Another

Mr.Y.Janardhan Reddy,Hyd Vs Apgcl,Ch.Gen.Manager,Hyd,and 2