Allowed

Ponugoti Jithender Rao v. Siripuram Ramaiah

Telangana HC3 Apr 2023CRP/224/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 Constitution of India challenges an order dismissing an application for police aid. The High Court set aside the impugned order directing the lower court to reconsider the application in light of changed circumstances and disposed of the revision petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.12.2022 set aside; Magistrate directed to consider and dispose of application for police aid within two months.

Ponugoti Jithender Rao Vs Siripuram Ramaiah — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32sl I

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAO

¶3

MONDAY,^{THE THIRD DAYOF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYTHREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER}

¶6

ClVIL REVISION^{PETITION No:224OF2023}

¶7

Petition under Arlicle^{227 of the Constitutionof lndia, aggrievedby the} docketorderDated16j12-2022inl.A.No.1of2O2Oinl'A'No'101of2016in o.s.No.47 of 2016,^{on the file of the courtof the I Additional Junior civilJudge,} Mancherial.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ponuooti Jithender^{Rao,S/o. RajagopalRao, Aged about 40 years,Occ-} Busin6ss, Rl/o.¹ O-1 3,^{Ram Nagar, Teegalpahad, Mancherial}

¶10

Pala Venkatesh,^{S/o. Pala Rajam,Age 29 years, Occ - Business,Rl/o. 1066,} Naspur, Rl/M Mancherial,^{Adilabad District.}

¶11

...Petitioner/Petitioner No.'t

¶12

AND

¶13

Siripuram Ramaiah, S/o.^{Rayalingu,Age 50 years, Occ- Business,R:/o.} Shalawada, Seetharampally,^{Rl/M.Mancherial.}

¶14

Mogili Sammaiah,^{S/o. Rajaiah, Age- 50. years, Occ- Business, R/o. CCC X} road, Teegalpahad, RyM. Mancherial.

¶15

Jugal Kishore, S/o. Ramprasad,^{Age- 65 years, Occ- Business, Fyo. 1B'} Chowrastha, Mancherial-

¶16

Siripuram Raiamma, Wo.^{Rajalingu,Age' 70 years, Occ- l-lousewife,R/o.} H.No.3-99, Seetharampally,^{R/M. Mancherial.}

¶17

Siripuram Rayalingu,^{S/o. Rayamallu,Age} Q0^{years, Occ- Business,Fl,/o.} CCC X Road; FyM. Mancherial.^{(Died Per LRs being Rep by Rl,4,6)}

¶18

Siripuram Dharmaiah,^{S/o. Rayalingu,Age 48 years, Occ- Business,R/o.} Shilawada, Seetharampally,^{Rl/M.Mancherial}

¶19

Debbati Rajaiah,^{S/o. Bheemaiah,Age 55 years,R/o' Seetharampally' R/M.} Mancherial.

¶20

Bolishetti Bapu, S/o.^{Ralaiah, Age- 45 years, Occ- Business,R/o.} Seetharampally,^{R/M. Mancherial.}

¶21

,,' 9. Katukuri Devaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Age- 55 years, Occ- Business, Rt/o. Seetharampally, Rl/M. Mancherial.

¶22

Katukuri Lingaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, Age- 58 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. Seetharampally, R:/M. Mancherial.

¶23

1 1. Pudari Narayana, S/o. Papaiah, Age- 48 years, Occ- Business, R:/o. Seetharampally, Rl/M. Mancherial.

¶24

Pudari Rayalingu, S/o. Papaiah, Age- 45 years, Occ- Business, Rl/o. Sheetharampally, Rl/M. Mancherial

¶25

...Respondents/Respondents

¶26

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim Police Aid to the petitioner to implement the lniunction Order

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. THADIKONDA KOTESHWARA PRASAD

¶29

Counsel for the Respondents: GWSR SUBRAHMANYAM

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M. SRINIVAS REDDY

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

II tI

I /./

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶36

CwIL REVISION PETITION No.224 OF 2o.23.

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

I \

¶39

This Civil Revision Petition is hled challenging the order dt.16.12.2o22 passed in IA.No. I of 2O2O in IA.No.lOl of 2016 in OS.No.47 of 2016 by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manherial, whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the IA filed under Section 151 of CPC by the plaintiffs seeking police Aid to enjoy the suit schedule properry.

¶40

Heard and perused the record

¶41

The ground on which the learned Magistrate refused the petition Iiled by the plaintiffs for police aid is that there was no existence of interim orders in CRP.No.5930 of 2017.

¶42

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that CRP.No.593O of 2OlZ was disposed off in favour of the petitioners/ plaintifls

¶43

In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel, the order dt.16.12.2022 passed in IA.No. I of 2O2O in IA.No.1O1 of 2OL6 in OS.No.47 ol 2016 is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to consider and dispose of the application for police Aid

¶44

¶45

¶46

in the changed circumstances, within two months^{from the date}

¶47

of receipt of a copy of this^order.

¶48

Accordingly, the Civil Revision^{Petitionis disposed off.}

¶49

Miscellaneous Petitions,^pending if^{any, shall stand closed.}

¶50

Sd/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The I Additional Junior Civil Judge,^Mancherial

¶55

One CC to SRl. THADIKONDA^{KOTESHWARAPRASAD,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶56

One CC to SRl. GWSR SUBRAHMANYAM,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

One CC to SRI M. SRINIVAS^{REDDY, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶58

Two CD Copies

kam

i I I I I i ; l i l

HIGH COURT DATED:0310412023

¶63

ORDER

¶64

5 T..r l.i.
./.: ii 1 cA
1,.<br>lltrl ?t?J
[5

¶65

CRP.No.224 ot 2023

¶66

DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISON PETITION

¶67

A\A--
,7
1\ <br>

Ponugoti Jithender Rao v. Siripuram Ramaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponugoti Jithender Rao v. Siripuram Ramaiah

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

Ramu Sunkenapalli Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mirza Hameedalla Baig Vs The State of Telangana

D.Venkat Reddy and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

Sukesh Gupta Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Mr. Datta Aditya Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mutyalarao Siddabathuni and 3 others Vs The State of Telangana and another