The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of a Transfer Petition. The Court held that administrative lapses in the lower court's record did not constitute grave error warranting interference, and thus the suit remains in the original court.
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no order as to 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.
I
[320e I
IN THE HIGHCOURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY,THENTNTH DAY OF OCTOBER iirvo rxousaNDAND rwENwrHREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLEDR. JUSTICECHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CIVIL REVIION PETITIONNO:2324 oF 20
PetitionUnder Arlicle 227 constitutionof lndiaagainst the Orderdated 1OlO7l2O23in TR OP NO 4 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Principal DistrictJudge At Nizamabad'
Between:
occ Private ",prov""n|/1''El]i Hyderabad- 40 '
...PETITIONERS
AND
-7
Counsel for the Petitioners
: SRl. J. C. FRANCIS
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5
: Smt. BONTHU RAJANI
: CH. B.R.P. SEKHAR
The Court made the following: ORDER
t7
HONBLE Dr. JUSTICECHILLAKURSUIYIALATHA
CIVIL REVIS//oN PETITI'ON No.232B of 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition ishled challenging the order that was passed by theCourt of Principal DistrictJudge, Nizamabad in Tr.O.P.No.4of 2023, dated lO.7 .2023.
2
Dr CSL. .t { llP \o.)32,\ of )02-1
amendment petition moved, when the counsei for the petitioners visited the concerned Section of the Court, and non-mentioning of the disposal of I.A. No.97 of 2023 on the docket. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly concedes that the said mistake cannot be wholly attributable to the Presiding Officer. Learned counsel however states that the Presiding Officer was not attentive and vigilant in conducting the proceedings. The observation made by the principal District Judge, Nizamabad in the impugned order is that the learned judge is in-charge officer and that the court which the learned judge is manning and the in_charge Court are both heavy pendency Courts.
l
Dr CSL. J CRP.\o 232ti of )02]
closed.
Sd/- MODH.IS AIL ASSISTANT REGIS RAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION FFICER
To,
DL
Pilq
HIGH COURT
DATED:09/10/2023
ORDER CRP.No.2328 ot 2023
DISMISSING THE CRP
@ry*
&ua/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the absence of a speaking order on the docket and non-mentioning of interlocutory application disposal amounts to grave error warranting interference.
Whether the impugned order dismissing the transfer petition can be set aside due to administrative irregularities in the lower court record.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G. Krishna Kumari
G. Nalini
K. Sridevi
G. Srilatha
G. Ashok Babu
G. Sridevi
Dr. Justice Chillakura Sumalatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
