Allowed

Sri Marine Narsimlu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Sept 2023WP/25493/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the review petitioners to condone the delay in filing a review application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The High Court ordered the DRT to decide the matter expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the review application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal was allowed and the Tribunal was directed to decide the application expeditiously.

Sri Marine Narsimlu Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

133771

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶7

REVIEW l.A.No.2 OF 2023

¶8

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 25493 OF 2023

¶10

Between

¶11

Sri lvlanne Narsimlu, S/o. Kistaiah, Aged 42 years, Occ. Business, Rt/o. H. No 1 -76, Pothireddypally, Sangareddy District.

¶12

Smt. Ivl. Lalitha, W/o. late ltrlallesh, @ Mallaiah, aged 38 years, Occ Housewife, R/o. H.No. 1 -7711, Pothireddypally, Sangareddy District.

¶13

...REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONER Nos.1 & 2 lN WP 25493 OF 2023

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, New Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500063.

¶16

The District Collector, Sanga Reddy District, Office of the District Collector, Sanga Reddy, Telangana State.

¶17

The Tahsildar, Sanga Reddy Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, Sanga Reddy, Telangana State.

¶18

Canara Bank, Narayanguda Branch, Hyderabad-29, Rep. by its Authorized Officer.

¶19

M/s. Shrest lndustries P. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing, Director, Flat No.101 , Plot No.243, Road No.10C, MP and MLA Colony, Hyderabad-500033.

¶20

Sri Marine Bairaj and Balaiah, S/o. late M. Kistaiah, Occ. Agriculture, Pothireddvpally' sangareddy District

¶21

...RES'.NDENTS

¶22

Petition under Section 114 of C.P.C of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to review the orders passed by this Hon'ble court in WP 25493 of 2023, dated 14-09-2023 to meet the ends of^justice.

¶23

-"^--------7'

¶24

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and Memorandum of Grounds fired in support thereof and upon reading the order dt. 14.o9.2023 in w.p.No.254g3t2o23 and upon hearing the arguments of sri c.Hanumantha Rao, counser for the Review petitioners and of sri Muraridhar Reddy Katram, GP for Revenue for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and sri Dishit Bhattarcharjee, standing counser of canara Bank on beharf of the Respondent No.4 and none appeared for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6. the court made the following: ORDER

I ,

) )

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUST ICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'B LE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SH RAVAN KUMAR

¶29

REVIEW I.A.No.2 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITIO NNo .25493 0F 2023

¶30

ORDER' 1Ce. rt e Hon bte thc Chte.l Justice Alok Aradhe)

¶31

Mr. C. Hanurnantha Rao. learned counsel for the review petitioners.

¶32

Mr- Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Governrnent

¶33

Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. I to 3.

¶34

Mr. Dishit Bhattarcharjee, leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No.4/Bank.

¶35

This application is filed seeking review of the order dated 14.09.2023 passed by rhis Courr in W.p.No.25493 of 2023.

¶36

Wilh consent o1 the parties, the review application is heard finally.

¶37

The review petitioners had filed a writ petition in which they had challenged the validity of the order dated 1 I .08.2023 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in Review Apptication No.6 of 2023 in I.A.No. 1638 of 2012 in S.A.l.R.No.827 of 2022. By the aforesaid order, the application for review filed by the petitioners

¶38

¶39

was dismissed on the ground that no ground for condonation of delay was made out

¶40

It is trite law that the expression "sufficient cause" should receive liberal consideration so as to advance the cause ofjustice. fherelore, the order dated 14.09.2023 in W.P.No.25493 of 2023 is modified. The delay tn filing the application seeking review of the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is allowed. The Debts Recovery lribunal is directed to decide the application filed by the petitioners seeking review of the order expeditiously. It is made clear that it is open for the parties to raise all such contentions as is petmissible in law

¶41

Accordingly, the review application is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs

¶42

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed

¶43

SD/-MOHD. IS IL //TRUE COPYII ASSISTANT REGIS R

¶44

sECTlo N OFFICER

¶45

¶46

1 The Principal SecretAry, Bhavan Hyderabad, Revenue Department New Secretariat BRKR The SangaDisReddy, trict CollectorTelangana State,STelanga angana, State of Redd y District,TelOfficeangan a of - 500063the District Collector

¶47

J. The Ta hsildar Tela ngana StateSanga Reddy Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, Sanga Reddy,

¶48

1. TelaThe ngana, at Section Officer,H yd erabad.Non-Service Section High Cou( for the State of 5. at Hyderabad.The Section Officer, Posting Section, High Court for the State of Telangana,

¶49

tl 7 One CC to SRt C.HANUMANT HA RAO, Advocate loPUCl Two HyderabadCCs to Gpto^UT] FOR REVENU E, High Court for the State of Telangana, at

¶50

1. One CC to S RI DISH IT BHATTARCHARJEE, SC FOR CANARA BANK

¶51

IOPUC]

¶52

I Two CD Copies

¶53

PSK. GJP

i .] i

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210312024

ORDER

REVIEW l.A.No.2 OF 2023 IN WP.No.ZS493 of 2023

¶60

1uE Sr4 IIF
()o z.
19 APB 212{
t
* *
t,F.spa rCHeg

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE REVIEW PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶62

r\ t-.-
e

Sri Marine Narsimlu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Marine Narsimlu v. The State of Telangana

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

Dr. G.Aravind Kumar Vs Union of India

Mohd. Saleem Ahmed Vs Mohammed Akif Safvan

Mr. G. Ramesh Kumar Vs Union of India

Mr. Ravi Kumar Pulli Vs Iifl Home Finance Ltd.

Thanda Harini Vs The State of Telangana

Basani Manish Chandra Vs The State of Telangana