Allowed

Dr. Dayanka Dukkipati v. Dr. Mandava Arum Shyam

Telangana HC21 Apr 2023CRP/1307/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition seeking setting aside a trial court order that refused to admit documents and dismissed an interim stay plea, directing the lower court to receive documents and proceed with trial.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was allowed; the trial court order was set aside; direction was issued to receive documents and proceed with the trial.

Dr. Dayanka Dukkipati Vs Dr. Mandava Arum… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[³²⁰⁸ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE^SUDHA

¶7

CIVIL REVISI ON PETITION NO: 1307 OF 2023

¶8

Petition under A iicle 227 of constitution of lndia aggrieved^{by the orderdated} 2710312023 in l.A.NO. 383 of 2023 F.C.O.P.NO.76^{of 2019 on the file of the Courtof} the Family Court-cum-lll Additional District and Sessions^{court at Nizamabad}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Dr. Dayanka Dukkipati, Wo Arun Shyam,^{Aged about40 years,Occ Medical} Practitioner, Fi/o Flat No. K4, J. B. Tower,^{Pragathinagar,Nizamabad.} (Presently at Hyderabad).

¶11

... PETITIONERYRESPONDE NT/PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Dr. Mandava Arum Shyam, S/o M. Babu^{Rao,Aged aboul 42 years,Occ} Dentist, Rl/o H. No. 1- 1- 1536, Rakasipet, Bodhan,^Nizamabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/PETITION ERYRESPONDENT

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleasedto} pass orders granting interim stay of all further^proceedings in F. C. O. P. No.⁷⁶ of 2019 pending on the file of the Hon'ble Family Court-^cum- lll^{Addl.District} and Sessions Court, at Nizamabad^{pendingdisposal of the main CRP}

¶17

Counset for the Petitioner: SRl. VOLIMINENI MANOGNYA

¶18

Counsel for the itispondent: M/S K. SRlDEvl

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

t \

¶21

\ \

¶22

'r ilr. il()\ol rr \Bt.t. s{'t'..,(isl.tcL p. sRuE strDrrA ( r\ il_ Rt.\ tst(r\ t,l.'l'l'l lO\ \1o.1307 OF' 2021

¶23

otU)t..tt:

¶24

I lri:^('ir il I(e-r isiorr Pcrition is Iiled against the orclcr ol'rhc trial c(;Lrir r, I.,...lNl .l'l0ll in I,.C.O.p.No.76 ol'2019 datcd 17.0i l02i Ilil-\sf(l^{[),\ tlrc} .lLrr-ltc. I,unrilr^('oLrrr curtr-lll .\dclitionul District rrnd Scssions^('oLrrt. N izanrabad

¶25

l. {h.' [-.('.() 1,\o.'/(r trl ]019 is lilcd by thc husband ibr ",rrrLrlrIenr^{ol thc nrrr,.r ir.rr- rritlr lris \ilc :.c.. respondent. [)r-rring thc} pcndcncr ol lhc procceclrnus. Lr,No,183 of 202i is tlled to receivc lhc ciocuurcrrts rlltich arc listcrl as lbllou.s:

¶26

S.No.

¶27

S.N	o. Dcscriptionofthetlocumcnt	Datcofthe document l
I	(.('.olthr.IlrrirrrrrrO.S.No 161ol2014onth lllc of'the^\iirr:rio'(-ir.rl.ltrdge,Citv Civil(.our.t. IIrclcrabarli i:lrcct:i	25.04.20t4 l l
-l	(.(,)l rlri;'..riiitiri,nrd:rllidaritinl.A.No.iX7 ol'l0l-1irr()S\t,.76Iot'101.1onthclllc-ofrhe X.lunior('ivil.lucige.CiryCivilCour1. Ihdcr-abad(.1slrctts)	25.01t0I.1 ' I
	(('.ot-rhc Chicf:c-xanrinarionaffidav ito1-PW.I irrO.S.\o.,rol ol'-l()i,i91Lhc.Illc ot'thcXJurrior ('iiilJtrdgr.(ity('irilCoLrrr.Ilydcrabad(i .^shccts) '	15.09.2014 )
.l	(.(lo1' thcchict'exaniinaiionaffidarzitofpW 'inOS.No.76I o1'10l4onthefileofthe XJuniori i^{('ivil.lLrclgc.('it1}r'ivilCourr,[.{yderabad(2i 1 shr:cts)	l l I I 15(lq)nt1
\|( (ol'thciLrJur.ricnran.lc.lricrccinO.S.No.7fit oil0l:lonlllclllcol'rhc X.luniorCirilJudgc. (it-r(irilLr)ui.i.Ill,clcr.abad(5sheets)	l 07.r0l0r.1

¶28

¶29

¶30

=w ,.r \ (rr li^r lrrll

¶31

i. lhc^{trial tottt'1 o[]5crvcdthat tllc a|plicuticrnis tllcd irr thc \car} l02l irr-ffiot'filing^{in thc lear l0 lE and 11511 i1 ri:tshclcl tliat thc} burdcrl^{is orl the petitioner but llot on the rcspondelrt and accordirlglr} disrnissed^{thc application against whichthis appeal is prelcrled'}

¶32

4.[.earnedcounselfbrthercsponderrtrcpoflcdnoobicctiontbr'

¶33

receiving^{of the said documentsas he is nlorc pafiicularlor expcditior'rs} d isposal^{of the case'}

¶34

5 Theretbre,^{withoutgoing into thc mcrlts oI the casc. tlris Court} fi nds it^{is just and reasonableto set asidethc ordcrof the trial Cotttt} with the^{direction to receivethe documcnts and to procecd rviththe} trial^{at the earliestPoint of time}

¶35

ln^{the result,the Civilltcvision I'ctitionis allouedby setttng} -I'he trial Court is dirccted to rccelvc aside^{the order o I the trial Coutt'} thc documents^{and to proceedwith the trial at thecat liest point ol'tirrre}

¶36

¶37

Miscellaneous^{aPPlications'if any, Pending,shall stand closed}

¶38

qN,. K.AMMAJI ASSISTAI'iiREGISTRAR ,TTRUE^COPY'/ SECTTO^{N OFFICER}

¶39

To, 1 The Judge^{FamilyCourt cum-Ul Additional District and Sessionscourt} 2 3 H'*#iid;r,".",5$,-ilJsll:?3)'l3,AdvocatetoPucr 4 Two^{CD CoPies} S

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10412023

$tY 1l'r'l 31

ORDER

GRP.No.1307 o12023

ALLOWING OF THE CRP
WITHOUT COSTS
rn"t
1\lriLt

Dr. Dayanka Dukkipati v. Dr. Mandava Arum Shyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Dayanka Dukkipati v. Dr. Mandava Arum Shyam

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

Kothawalli Raji Reddy Vs Mrs. Kanukala Sathemma

T. Venkata Siva Rao, Vs Padala Tagore, and Another

Swamy Vivekananda Swamy Educational Trust Vs S.G. Rayappa Raju

Dr. DayankaDukkipati Vs Dr. Mandava Arum Shyam

M. Sridhar Rao, Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Bairi Rakesh Kumar Vs Perumalla Sammaiah