Disposed

Repalle @ Reballe Thrilochan Rao v. Katlakunta Pedda Gangaram

Telangana HC22 Sept 2023CRP/2340/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of three Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227. The Court directed the subordinate court to first consider the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before entertaining other miscellaneous applications regarding an ex parte decree. Consequently, the CRPs were disposed of with other pending miscellaneous applications closed.

What did the court decide?

Directing the trial court to dispose of the condonation of delay application first; miscellaneous applications stand closed.

Repalle @ Reballe Thrilochan Rao Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

CIVIL REVIS ION PETITION Nos:2310. 2261 &2340^gF 2023

¶6

C.R.P.NO. 2310 0F 2023

¶7

Petition Under Nlicle 227 of the Constitution of^{lndia aggrievedby the docket} order dated 19-07 -2023 in l.A.No.⁸²³ of^{2022 in O.S.l'1,o.199 of 20'18 on the file of} the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge,^{at Jagtial}

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 . Repalle @ Repalle Thrilochan Rao,^(died on 07 .02.2022)

¶10

Repalle Hari Krishna Rao, S/o late Thrilochan Rao, Aged about^{46 years,} Occ. Busienss and Advocate.

¶11

Repalle Rama Devi, W/o late Thrilochan^{Rao, Aged about 67 years, Occ.} Household.

¶12

Repalle Ramakrishna, 9o late Thrilochan Rao, Aged about^{48 years,Occ.} business,

¶13

All are residents of H.l.lo.3-1-28, Shiva Veedhi, Jagtial^{Town and District-}

¶14

...PETITIONERS/ Respondents/ Plaintiffs

¶15

ANO

¶16

Katlakunta Pedda Gangaram, S/o late Pochaiah, Aged^{about 91 years, Occ.} Senior Citizen, R/o H.Nb.+1-27, Vani Nagar, Ward^{No.24, Jagtial Town and} District

¶17

...RESPONDENT/ Petitioner / Defendant

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N.^{MUKUND REDDY}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED

¶20

CIVIL REVISION

¶21

N NO: 226'l OF 2023

¶22

Petition Under Anide 227 of the Constitution of^lndia aggrieved^{by the docket} order dated 19-07 -2023 in l.A.No.⁸²¹ of^{2022in O.S.No.199 of 2018 on the file of} the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge,^{at Jagtial}

¶23

Between:

¶24

!e-p^alf-g @ Repalle Thrilochan Rao (died n 0t .O2.2O22), resident of H.No.31-28, Shiva Veedhi, Jagtial Town and district.

¶25

Repalle Hari Krishna Rao, S/o late Thrilochan Rao, Aged about 46 years, Occ. Busienss and Advocate

¶26

Repalle Rama Devi, Wo late Thrilocharr Rao, Aged about 67 years, Occ. Household.

¶27

Repalle Ramakrishna, S/o late_Thrilochan Rao, Aged about 4g years, Occ. Business ...PET|TIONERS/ Resiondents /^{ptiintiitiJ --}

¶28

All are residents of H.No.3-1-28, Shiva Vrpdhi, Jagtial Town and district.

¶29

AND

¶30

[gllatu{g lgqla 9gry_aF.m,.S/o^{tatepochaiah, Agedabout 91 years, Occ. Senior} urtrzen, ruo H.No.4-1-27, Vani Nagar, Ward No.It4, Jagtial Town^-and District

¶31

...RE[iPONDENT/^petitioner / Defendant

¶32

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶33

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support oI the-petition, the l-ligh court may be pleased to grant ltay^{of all further proceedings in o.s.No.199 oi 2b1g on the file of principat} Jinior Civil Judge, at Jagtial, in the interest of iustice, pending disposal the C.R.jD.

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. N. MUKUND ttEDDy

¶35

Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED

¶36

CIVIL REVISION PETITION l,lO:2340 0F 2023

¶37

Petition Under Arricre 22r of the constitu:ion of rndia aggrieved by the docket order dated 19-07 -2023 in r.A.No. 822 ot 2022 in o.s.No. 199-of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, at .lagtial

¶38

Between:

¶39

Repalle @ Rebatte Thritochan Rao, (died on 07.02.2022)

¶40

Repalle_ Hari Krishna Rao, S/o late Thrilochan Rao,/ Aged about zt6 years, Occ. Busienss and Advocate.

¶41

Repalle Rama Devi, W/o late Thrilo<;han Rao. Aged about 67 years, Occ. Household-

¶42

Repalle Ramakrishna, S/o late Thrilochan Rao. Aged about 4g years, Occ. business,

¶43

All are residents of H.No.3-1-28, (ihiva Veedhi, Jagtial Town and district.

¶44

¶45

...PETITIONER/ Respondents/ Plaintiffs

¶46

AND

¶47

Katlakunta Pedda Gangaram, Stro late Pochaiah, Aged about 91^years, Occ. Senior Citizen, Rl/o H.No.4-1-27, Vani Nagar, Ward No.24, Jagtial Town and District

¶48

...RESPONDENT/ Petitioner / Defendant

¶49

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. N. MUKUND REDDY

¶50

Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared

¶51

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶52

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER C[VIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 23L8,226L &2340 OF 2Ct23

¶53

COMMON ORDER:

¶54

Since the I.As in the abo're C.R.Ps. pertain to O.S.No.199 of 2018, all are heard together and disposed off by this common order.

¶55

I.A.No.823 of 2022 is liled to bring the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 I legal heirs of der:eased plaintiff No. I AS plaintiff Nos.2 to 4, I.A.No.82 I of 2O22 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1Ol4 days and I.A.No.822 of 2O2')- is filed to set aside the ex-parte decree passed on 30. I I .20 19 against the petitioner/ defendalt.

¶56

¶57

l,earned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Jagtial directed that all the three I./\s would be heard on 09.o8.2023

¶58

the Learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner/ decree l-rolder rvould submit that the procedure adopted by the learned Jurrior Civil Judge is erroneous.

¶59

¶60

Firstly, the condonation of delay has to be considered and thereafter, the question of entertaining other applications seeking to set aside the ex_parte decree wor.rld arise.

¶61

5' Needless to say, any further proceedings in the case would arise, if the Court is inclined to condone the delay in the application made. Unless the delay is condoned, the Court cannot entertain other applications. In the event of refusing to condone the delay, the question of entertaining any other application does not arise. Therefore, the Court below is directed to dispose off the condone delay application.

¶62

Accordingly, these Civil Revision petitions are disposed off. Miscellaneous applications pending, tr gly, shall stand closed.

¶63

or",riflil'J#'IFF

¶64

,fTRUE^COPY'/ SECT|oNUdFlcER

¶65

Dist. ro

¶66

i-rJfls,"""r,r1"Xj$#3i33fi8i' llll?'i3iJ'3k'i:'f^{:'il'i'lli'-'JEn'b"D'Y']ru&'teroPU(}

3.^{Two cD copies}

w--

HIGH COURT

DATED:22lOsl2O23

iiii:lia
\
t:;,/:
i:_) 01 il0\l 2$n
,
:t. -k
20 !l:. 1

¶72

COMMON ORDER

¶73

ctvl L REVISION PETITION Nos : 231 0.2261 &23/,O OF 20

¶74

DISPOSING OF TTM ALL C.R.PS

¶75

5cd.4 FK ;drii*

Repalle @ Reballe Thrilochan Rao v. Katlakunta Pedda Gangaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Repalle @ Reballe Thrilochan Rao v. Katlakunta Pedda Gangaram

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

Smt Vijaya Devi Mamidi Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Smt Chittaluri Dhanalakshmi Vs State of a.P., Rep by P.P and Another

Yousufunnisa Begum and 3 Others Vs the State of Telangana, Rep by P.P and Another

Repalle alias Repalle Thrilochan Rao Vs Katlakunta Pedda Gangaram

Repalle @ Repalle Thrilochan Rao (died on 07.02.2022) Vs Katlakunta Pedda Gangaram

Sanghi Industries Ltd. and Another Vs the Deputy Commissioner of It.,Rep.,Spl Pp