Disposed

Parkala Rajasekhar Reddy v. Parkala Janardhan Reddy

Telangana HC2 Jan 2023CRP/2055/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging the non-disposal of an application for a final decree in a partition suit. The Court directed the lower court to appoint an experienced Advocate Commissioner to complete the report within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed lower court to appoint experienced Advocate Commissioner to submit report within 3 months; dismissed revision petition.

Parkala Rajasekhar Reddy Vs Parkala Janardhan Reddy — Partition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2055 OF 2022

¶7

Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrieved in non disposing of the 1.A.No.239 of 2003 in 1.A.No.694 of 1992 in O.S.No.195 of 1988 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubad. Between:

¶8

Parkala Rajasekhar Reddy. S/o P. Narayan Reddy, Age 55 years, Occ Agricultuirst R/o 1-3-58, Mahabubabad town and District

¶9

...REVISION PETITIONERYRESPONDENT

¶10

AND

¶11

P arkala Janardhan Reddy, S/o Narayana @ Narsaiah, Aged 58 years, Occ. Agriculture H.No. 1-3-58, Mahubabad Town. Warangal District (died) as^per L Rs Defendant No 11

¶12

P arkala Ramachandra Reddy, S/o Janardhan Reddy, Aged.41 years, Occ. Contractor, R/o H No.^'1-3-58, Mahubabad Town. Warangal District (died) as per L. Rs Defendant No. 6 to 10

¶13

3 Parkala Vijayapal Reddy, S/o Janardhan Reddy , Aged. 36 years, Occ. Head Draftsman I T.D A. Eturunagaram, Warangal District.

¶14

Parkala Sriram Reddy @ Ramanna, S/o. Janardhan Reddy, Aged. 32 yearc, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.^'1-3-58, Mahabubabad Town., Warangal District

¶15

Parkala Venkatamma Reddy, Wo Janardhan Reddy, Aged. 65 years, Occ. Household, R/o H No. 1-3-58, Mahubabad Town. Warangal District (dred)

¶16

Parkala Pushpa. Wo Late P. Rama Chandra Reddy, Aged. 47 years, Occ. Household, R/o H.No 1-3-58, IVlahubabad Town, Warangal District,

¶17

P arkala Hyma. D/o Late P. Rama Chandra Reddy, Aged.27 years, Occ. Agriculturist R/o H.No 1-3-58, Mahubabad Town, Warangal District.

¶18

Parkala Dilip Reddy, S/o. Late P. Rama Chandya Reddy, Aged. 22 years, Occ. Agriculturist R/o H.No. 1-3-58, Mahubabad Town, Warangal District.

¶19

Parkala Meena, D/o Late P. Rama Chandra Redly, Aged 20 years, Occ. Agnculturist R/o H.No. 1-3-58, Mahubabad Town, Warangal District.

¶20

Parkala Plavana, D/o Late P. Rama Chandra Refldy, Aged 1B years, Occ. Agriculturist R/o H.No. 1-3-58, IVlahubabad Torvn, Warangal District.

¶21

'1 1. Koduri Aruna, D/o Late P. Janardhan Reddy, Aged. 42 years, Occ. Household' R/oMahabubad rown' waransLlR!"Jrt*r=Nrs/DEFENDANTs

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRl. KIRAN PALAKURTHI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3,6,9&10 : SRI J.VENKATESWARA REDDY

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

I I

¶26

THE HON'BLE SMT. WSTICE P,MADHAVI DEVI CrvlL REVISION PETITI ON No.2O5 5 of 2022

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Civil Revision petition is liled seeking disposal of the LA.No.239 of 2OO3 in I.A.No.694 of 1992 in O.S.No.195 of 1988 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad.

¶29

The petitioner is son of the plaintiff in o.s.No.1g5 0f 1gg8. The suit was fi1ed for partition. A preriminary decree was passed and for passing the final decree, Advocate Commissioner was appointed. It is submitted that inspite of several Advocate Commissioners being appointed thereafter, the finar decree has not been passed and therefore, the present Civil Revision petition is {iled.

¶30

On service of notice, the respondents No.3, 9 and l0 have put in their appearance and though notices have been served on the othei respondents, there is no appearance on their behalf.

¶31

A report was called for from the lower court seeking reasons for the pendency of the I.A. for such a long time. The report of the Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad has been received on 28.10.2022 wherein, it is explained that the Advocate Commissioners have been appointed from time to time for passing of

¶32

I I

¶33

PMD.J C.R.P.No.2055 of 2022

¶34

¶35

¶36

the final decree but, each of the Commissioner, in turn, returned the brief expressing their diffrculty. It is submitted that no Advocate Commissioner filed his complete report and therefore the Court is unabie to dispose of the said suit.

¶37

In view of the above, this Court deems it llt and proper to direct the lower court to appoint an experienced Advocate Commissioner with sufficient standing of at least 10 years and direct him to submit the report within a period of three (03) months from the date of appointment. A11 the parties are directed to cooperate with the Advocate Commissioner.

¶38

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

Miscellancous petitions, if any, pending in this Revision Petition, shall stand closed.

¶40

Sd/. K. VENKAIAH ASStSrAz.r-REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER

¶41

To, 1. The Senior.-Civrl Judge. at Mahabubabad 2. One XX^{j?:ri Kiran patakurthiA;;;cate(OPUC)} 3. One 4. fwo B; t":r,:r, Venkateshwar R"ddt: A,ffi;;ioeucl ks VH ,{

\ t

HIGH COURT

PMD, J

DATED: 0210112023

l
tffiAP-
g ozFEBzozs
ORDER
+

¶47

CRP.No.2055 of 2022

¶48

Disposing of the C.R.P Without costs.

¶49

@
tn
TA \r \u1

¶50

l I I

Parkala Rajasekhar Reddy v. Parkala Janardhan Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parkala Rajasekhar Reddy v. Parkala Janardhan Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satthaiah Vs Sri.S.a.M.Rizvi, IAS

Kola Yakalaxmi Vs Vallapu Santhamma and 9 others

S.K.G.Basha Vs Dr Nalin Shinghal and 3 others

M/s. Pavan Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Jadala Vidyasagar Educational Society, Vs The State of Telangana

Shirdi Sai Educational Society Vs The State of Telangana And Another