The High Court of Telangana dismissed an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC as withdrawn by the appellant after counsel sought and received permission to withdraw from the proceedings.
Permission accorded to withdraw the appeal; appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
13251 l
IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHESTATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE NINTH DAYOF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYFOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICEK.SURENDER
APPEAL SUIT NO:344 OF 2012
Appeal Under Section 96 of C.P.Cagainst the Judgment and DecreeDat'ed
29.03.2012 made in o.S. No.1o72 of2f/07 on the file of the court of the Principal
District Judge, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.
Between:
Habeeb Mohsin, S/o.HabeebAbduHah,Business,Rl/o H.No. 18-10-78,Barkas, Hyderabad.
,PLAINT{FF/APPELLANT
AND
lA NO: 1 OF 20 24
Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to condone the delay of 1158 days in iiring the LR peiition in tne aoove AS No. 344 of 2012
lA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Order 22 Rute 9 R/W 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the peiitio;, ine Hign co;.t may be pleased to set aside the abatment in respect of respondent No. 2 in AS No. 344 of 2012.
lA NO: 3 OF 2024
Petition under order 22 Rure 4 R/w i51 cpc cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petit)on, tn"e Hign Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners herein to impread them as ,".pinJ"nt,
22 lo 24 as LRs ot MoM. Nase€ruddin Ahmed Khan, respondent No. 2 in AS No. 344 o'f 2012 and also in all interlocutory application pending before this Hon'ble Court.
lA NO: 4 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant permission to the petitioner/proposed respondent No. 22 to come on records as GPA holder of the proposed respondent No. 23 & 24.
Counsel for the Appetlant : Sri. S Sridhar
Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 to 13 & 17,20,21 : Sri A. Pulla Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l4,'t 5,16,18 & 19 : Sri Surendra Desai
The Court made the following: ORDER
'1 -:-z..ry
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
A.S.No.344 OF 2OL2
ORDER:
I. Learned counsel for the appella_nt hled a letter dated O3.O9.2O24 before the Registry seeking permission of this
Court to withdrau, the Appeal.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGIS
//TRUE COPY//
SECTIO OFFICER
To,
t. The Principal District Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar. (With records, if any)
DL
@a,
I
HIGH COURT
DATED:09/09/2024
JUDGMENT
AS.No.344 of 2012
D
--R \Hf s rA
(
ij fr ? itt, ?l?i '7
c
u'tt+
*
"d
.)6ri'..;",..ritr-o-
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AS WTHDRAWN.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to condone delay in filing limitation petition to challenge abatement of appeal.
Whether to set aside abatement of respondent No. 2 in the appeal.
Whether to permit impleadment of parties as respondents and proposed respondents.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Habeeb Mohsin
Mohd. Muzafaruddin Mohmood Khan
Mohd. Naseeruddin Ahmed Khan
K. Surender
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
