Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 221 against a dismissal order in a suit for stale representation. The petitioner did not appear; the matter was dismissed as infructuous by order.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
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.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION N O: 2'185 OF 2019
Petition under Article 221 of the Constitution of lndia, against the Order made in 1.A.No.438 of 2016 in O.S.No.103 of 2009 dated 09.03.2018 on the fite of the Additional Chairman MACT-Gum-XX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad.
Between:
Kommu Srinivasa Rao, S/o K. Rajaiah, Aged 43 years, Occ. prrvate Service, Rio 1Z_ 4312, Ram Nagar Colony, TempleAlwal, Boltaram-pO, Secunderabad ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF AND
(Responde rt Ncs 14 and.15 are impleaded as de enrjents vido Orders in I.A.No 4:18 rf 2016 dated 09.03.2018)
RESPONDENTS/PETtTtONT:RS/THtRD pARry lA NO: 1 OF 2(t 1!
Petition un e. Sectjon 151 CpC praying that in lhe crr:rinstances stated in the affidavit file d t:;upporl of the petition the High Court rray ;e Jrleased To stay all further procee rrgs in O S No.i03 of 2009 on the.ile ot H:rnorable.Additional chairman, t"1A(lr ')urn-xxAddr chief Judge city cir rr cjou 1si at securderabad, pending disposal ,l ihe abovc C.R p , in the interest of lusrice .
Counsel for the t -.titioner: SRt.B.SUDHAKAR REDDy
Counsel for the F -.spondent Nos.14& 15 SRI MAMIDI AVII\ ASH REDDY
The Court madej tte following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
ctvtl REVtstoN PETtTtoN No.2't85 0t 2019
ORDER
None oppeored for the pelitioner. Leorned counsel for the respondenl olreody submilled thot the moin suit vide O.S.No.l03 of 2009 wos dismissed for defoull. Iodoy there is no representotion on beholf of the pelitioner in spite of lisling lhe motter under the coption'for disnrissol'
respondenl, this Civil Revision Pelition is drsmissed os infructuous No cosis.
Pending miscelloneous opplrcotions, if ony. sholl stond
closed
ASSIS,'lli,lE5EiRlf;
/TTRUECOPY// SECTIO *'Add "na
To, I 2. J E['#fl:"i[k{,H*ffi*;+ifrfl ,i,', 4'A-iwoCD CoPies
HIGH COU ?T
ASRJ
DATED i24t0412023
ORDER
CRP.No.ll1ll5 of 2019
---=
/a $E- ,r+lF
,l .;
I
11')l
II B ,;iiii ?[R
:i
<br>
Dismissinrl the C.R.P as lnfructuou,;. Without costs.
(-
,(
')
'(<br>
Kommu Srinivasa Rao
Kondal Reddy family members
A.Santhosh Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
