Disposed

Y. Naga Satish v. V.L.C.V.S.S. Prasad alias V.L.S. Prasad

Telangana HC8 Sept 2023CRP/2790/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 against the return of review applications. The Court held that the proper course was resubmission to the trial court. It overruled its own office objections to grant liberty to the petitioner to resubmit the applications with clarification.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to resubmit the returned applications before the trial court with clarification and request for hearing.

Y. Naga Satish Vs V.L.C.V.S.S. Prasad alias… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR TFIE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶5

Civil Revision Petition Nos. 2789 & 2790 of 2023

¶6

CRP.No.2789 of 2023

¶7

Revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the return of application filed seeking review of the order dated 15.02.2023 in I.A.(CFR No.753 of 2023) in I.A.No.367 of 2079 in O.S.No.16 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Y. Naga Satish, S/o Y. Jithendrudu, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o Plot No.68 and 69, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabacl.

¶10

...Petitioner/ Petitioner/ Plaintiff .

¶11

AND

¶12

V.L.C.V.S.S. Prasad @ V.L.S. Prasad, S/o Late Pitchaiah, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.1, Lalithabioom Field, Khajaguda, Serilingampally, Hyderabad.

¶13

...Respondent/ Respondent/ Defendant.

¶14

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the I{igh Court may be pleased to suspend the Order dt.75.02.2023 passecl in I.A.No.1 of 2023 (CFT No.753 of 2023) in IA No.367 of 2023 in OS No.16 of 20'16 on the file of the I Addl. District Judge, Medak at Sangareclcly by numbering and hearing the review petition in IA No.1 of 2023 (CFR No.753 of 2023) in IA No.367 of 20L9 in OS No.16 of 20'16 in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the Revision petition.

¶16

CRP.No.2790 of 2023

¶17

Revision filel under Arncle 227 of the Constitutior of Irrrlia, aggrieved by the return of application filed seeking review of lhe or,,ler drted 15.02.2023 in I.A.(CFR No.752 of 2023) in I.A.No.366 of 20'|,9 ir O.S.li<:.16 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangarecldy

¶18

Between:

¶19

Y. Naga Satish, S/o Y.^jithendrudu, Aged about 45 years, C)cc. Business, R/o Plot No.68 and 69,^(oad No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶20

...Petiti oner/ Peti ti oncr/ Plaintiff .

¶21

AND

¶22

V.L.C.V.S.S. Prasad @' V.L.S. Prasad, S/o Late Pitchaiah, A1;el about 52years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.1, Lalithabloom Field, Khajlguda, S,eri lingampally, Hyderabad.

¶23

...Respondent,/ Responclent/ Defendant.

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶25

Petition und:r Section 151 CPC praying that in tlre r:ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitirn, the HilJh Court may be pleased to suspend the Order dt.'15.02.2023 passed irr [.A No 7 of 2023 (CFT No.752 of 20'.'.31 in IA No.366 of 2023 in OS lJo.16 ot 2C16 on the file of the I Addl. District Judge, Medak at Sangareridy [-v number:ing and hearing the review petition in IA No. 1 of 2O23 (CI R No.7;2 ,rf 2023) in IA No.366 of 201.9 in OS No.16 of 2016 in the inte est of justice, pending disposal of the Rev sion petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Peti ioner in both CRP's: Sri P.Bhanu l)raka;h

¶27

Counsel for the Resl,ondent in both CRP's: None appcars

¶28

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶29

I I

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶31

CML REVISION PETITIoN Nos.279O AND 2789 OF 2023

¶32

COMMON ORDER:

¶33

Bolh thcse civil revision petitions are filed agerieved by the return oI the applications hled by the petitior:er seeking revieu' of the order dated t5.O2.2023 passed in the respective I.As. vide CFR.Nos.752 and 753 of 2023 in I.A.Nos.366 and 367 of 2019 in O.S.No. 16 of 2016 on the Iile of the I Additional District J udge, Medak. Learned trial Court returned the said applications with certain objections. The proper course {or lhe petitioner rvould be to resubmit the said applications rr.ith appropriate explanation/clarilication and in case, if the same is not to the satisfaction of the olfice of the learned trial Court, th3 petitloner ought to have made a re(luest to placc the matters before the learned trial Court for passing appropriate orders on such office objections. lnstead of resorting to the same, the petitioncr approached this Court Ly Iiling the present civil revision petitions. Rightly the office of this Court also took the very samc objection.

¶34

This^(lourt is not inclined to further dwell into the matter as it is alwieys open for the petitioner to resubmit the applications and m'.lkc a.rc:quesf for placing the matters bcforc

¶35

the trial Court for passing appropriate ord,rrs on the application r and the office objections. Hence, Ibr the sake of conveuienc,: only, this Court is inclined to overrttle the office objections raised in these matters.

¶36

Accoriingly, the ofhce objections are overrul,rd and both these civil r evision petitions are disposed el grar ti:-rg liberty to the petition:r to resubmit the returned applications before the learned tria. Court with proper clarificalion and als,) to rnake a request for :lacing the same before thc lcarnecl lri 11^(lourt for passing app'opriatc orders on the office objec tions a:; to whether they can be sustained or overruled. In case, if the p,etitioner resubmits the returned applications, tht; sarnr s,hall be considered ty the trial Court in accordanct: rx,itL law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending ir-t tht:se civil revision petit ons shall stand closed.

¶38

sd/- N.cHANDll\ SI]KHAR RAO ASSISTA\T REGISTRAR I ,a-Ai ! / /TRUEC]P/ / SI]CTION OFFICER

¶39

To, 1. The I Adc'litional District Judge, Meclak at Sanga'eddy 2. One CC to Sri P.Bhanu Prakash, Advocate [OPL'C] 3. Two CD Copie;

]CK ADK

HIGH COURI'

DATED:0810fi.12023

COMMON OIIDER

cRP.NO.278!r AND 2790 0F 2023

¶45

I /;-i' ,31 'p.T E oF
J
h,I s
-L-
t;: L1 5tt +
\6
-t^
\ $
<br>

¶46

DISPOSING^()F THE CRP'S WITHOI..IT COS S.

¶47

l-<br>)
(
xr+
'.1 \ ->->

Y. Naga Satish v. V.L.C.V.S.S. Prasad alias V.L.S. Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y. Naga Satish v. V.L.C.V.S.S. Prasad alias V.L.S. Prasad

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

Polasani Ammai Vs The State of Telangana

Kondakalia Yadi Reddy Vs Smt.Bollampally Venkatamma

Bollampally Srikar Reddy Vs Smt.Bollampally Venkatamma

Rajesh Jain Vs Sri MD Nayeemuddin

Mohammed Majeehid Ali Vs Smt. Valluri Kranti IAS

Y. Naga Satish Vs V.L.C.V.S.S. Prasad alias V.L.S. Prasad