Dismissed

Lanka Rajaram v. Syed Saleemuddin

Telangana HC8 Feb 2023CRP/3060/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed. The High Court declined to interfere with a trial court order allowing respondents to be represented by a General Power of Attorney holder, holding it as a procedural matter causing no prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition No.3060 of 2022 was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Lanka Rajaram Vs Syed Saleemuddin — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

ctvlL REvrsroN PETITION NO: 3060 OF 2022

¶7

Petition Under Arlicle 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated: 15.9.22 in l.A. No. 118 ot 2019 in O.S. No. 61 ot 2017 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Lanka Rajaram, S/o Late Narsimulu, Aged about 60 years, Occ-Agriculture Behind Tirumala Petrol Pump, Dasnapur Village, Hyderabad.

¶10

Lanka Mohan, S/o Late Narsimulu, Aged about 58 years, Occ-Agriculture, Rt/o Khanapur locality, Adilabad.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 Syed Saleemuddin, S/o Nazeemuddin I (died) per LRs 2 Smt.Saidya Begum, Wo Late Syed Saleemuddin, Age 57 years, occ- Housewife, Rio Pbnjesha Mohalla, Adilabad

¶14

3 Naseema Khanam, D/o Late Syed Saleemuddin, ( aged 31 years, Occ- Houseiwfe, Rl/o Panjesha Mohalla, Adilabad.

¶15

1. Syed Ehteesham Uddin, S/o Late Syed Saleemuddin ( Aged 34 years, Occ- Pvt. Employee, Rio Panjesha Mohalla, Adilabad Town.

¶16

1. Asma Juned Sayyed, D/o late Syed Saleemuddin, Aged about 32 years, occ- Housewsife, R/o Panjesha Mohalla, Adilabad.

¶17

1. Syed Waseemuddin Farooque, S/o late Syed Saleemuddin, age 31 years, occ- Pvt.Employee, Fl/o Panjesha Mohalla, Adialbad.

¶18

1. Salman Afshan, D/o late Syed Saleemuddin, Age 29 years, Occ- Housewife, R/o Panjesha Mohalla, Adilabad.

¶19

8- Nasreem Begum, D/o Late Syed Saleemuddin, Aged 26 years, Occ- Housewife, R/o Panjesha Mohalla, Adilabad.

¶20

1. Parveen Begum, D/o Late Syed Saleemuddin, Age 25 years, Occ- housewife, Rl/o Panjesha Mohalla, Adilabad

...RESPONDENTS

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition un( er Section 151 cPC praying that in the cif( Lr nst.rnces slated in the affidavit filed i ) support of the petition, the High corrt may l)e I leased to stay all further procee iings in o.s.No.61 of 2017 on the fire of ..,nic,r civir Judge, Adilabad.

¶25

Counsel for the P >titioners: SRl. K RAMA SUBBA RAO

¶26

Counsel for the R>spondents: SRl. KONDADI AJAY KUMAR

¶27

The Court Deliver >d the following: ORDER

¶28

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶30

CTVIL REVISION PETITION No.3O5O of 2022

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

Hcard learned counsel app,:aring for the petitioners and Sri K. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶33

This civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.1t8 of 2O19 in O.S.No.6t of 2Ol7 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad, wherein the application filed by the respondents herein seeking to appoint the recognized agent, Sri Syed Gayasuddin, who is hoiding General Power of Attorney (G.P.A.), to prosecute with the case., was allowed.

¶34

-1

¶35

The petitioners herein are the respondents/defendants and the respondents herein are the petitioners/ plaintiffs before the trial Court. In the order under revision, the trial Court allowed the plaintiffs in O.S.No.6i of 2OlZ to be represented by their G.P.A., Holder. The trial Court, while passing the order under revision, observed that the plaintiffs can be represented by their G.P.A., Holder on the ground that sworn affidavits of all the plaintiffs were not filed and that all the plaintiffs are hale

¶36

ilnd health and resident of Adilabad District or.l,, r,.u thet.^,:rrlr I)rosecutc^{hc suit by themselves. The said ot1 :ct ron of t1'rc} petitioners hr:rein was not acceded to by the leeLrn::cl t rial Courl on the gr >u nrl that no prejudice would be :zrusr:d to the petitioners hcrt:in and a copy of the G.P.A, is also l-iled before the Court. I'he petitioners being the defendeints c rlr nol. have any right to dir tate the terms to the plaintiffs as to llrc rnanner in rvhich their suit is to be conducted. As rightly clr:;crved by the learned tr :rl Court, no prejudice would be :: usr d to the petitioners b',, z lowing the plaintiffs to be repr,::;:etc,1 by thcir G.P.A., tro)rlcr in prosecuting the suit in O.S ll:.61 of 2017^. This is onl^, a procedural matter and not affectin'z tht: rights of the parties Hence, this Court is not inclined [: cxercise the jurisdictior under Article 227 of the Constitution c,l lnrlia.

¶37

The r ivil revision petition is accordingly dtstniss,:d. There sha1l be no order as to costs.

¶38

Misc,:llaneous Petitions, if any,^pendir.g in this^civil

¶39

revision pe itron shall stand closed.

¶40

SD/.T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// -tl-) ,SECTI6N OFFICER

¶41

To, 1. The Junior Civil Judge,^Adilabad. 2. One CC tc Sri. K Rama Subba^Rao,Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC tc Sri. Kondadi Ajay^{Kumar, Advocate,} [OPUC] 4. Two CD C >pies

TJ *-

HIGH COUIIT

DATED:081t)212023

ORDER

CRP.No.3060 of 2022

Y\E- ST .1)i:-
/t
1 .. ?_ <br>1,.
,/ i' t
I1, IJ: rPl ?i[]
'( il..
-i lr
...

¶48

DISMISSING THE CRP

¶49

9
D
ffiN

Lanka Rajaram v. Syed Saleemuddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lanka Rajaram v. Syed Saleemuddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bondla Nagamani And 2 Others Vs State of Telangana And 3 Others

Uma Packaging Vs The State of Telangana

Koshika Srisailam Vs The State of Telangana and 14 others

Damera Ramsudhakar Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Bommala Srinivas Vs The state of Telarigana

Amrutha Narsimha Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others