Appeal suit against a judgment and decree in a property suit; appellants failed to prosecute, did not file the legal representative petition despite adjournment notice, and the appeal was dismissed for default.
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.
-,.-,,-* i'
' y :..
'i
[32{s l
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TEI-ANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY THE EIGHTH DAYOF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENWFOUR
t'
t
ir
i
.t -.
!.:.:
t!
'{l #$
i
I
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICEG.RADHARAN]
APPE SUIT NO: 104 OF 2011
Appeal Under Section 96RAfl Order41 Rule(1) of C'P.C 4ainsttheir Judgment and Decree Dated2344-2Ol1 madein oS N. 47 of 2OO4 on the file of the Court of the SeniorCivil Jude,Karimnagar.
Between:
...APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFSj"j
AND
...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
ASMP. NO: 1309 OF 2011
' Petition under Order 41 Rule 27(1[aa) CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the certified copies ofphani patriks for theyears 194748; t949-50; 1950-51; 1951-52; 1952-53; 1953-54 of Karimnagar Revenue Village and Mandal of Karimnagar District as additional evidence.
i
'::'. -
'l)':li-.,'
fffi
;i
, -. ,i'
,#x,rtiji-t. ,:
,4 ##S& 1i
,I. .:F,di#. l
+iij ', ::bI- ;i :
r..:. i ,
!:1, 1.
i j ai+,#;
i i.
.4.*t
.:
ASMP. NO: 1310 OF 2011
Petition under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support ofthe petition, the High Court may be pleased togranl: temporary injunctionrestrainingthe respondents,their agents, workmen, em6rloyees and laborer frominterfering with peaceful possession of petitioners, in or over the suit property measuring 1638.78 square yards in Sy. NO. 131 7/F, situate in vavilalapalli of Karimnagar RevenueVillage, Mandal and District bounded by East: 15'Road; West: 30'Road;North: Road; South: House of Poolanrma and otherspending disposalof the appeal and be pleased.
Counsel for the Appellant No.s 2 to 5
Counsel for the Respon,Cent Nos. 3 to 7
The Court Delivered the following:
: M/s. MOHD VALIUR RAHMAN
:SRl K. PRADEEP REDDY
{
it
1
,:-:
S.{
1:;
!:'
L
ri 1-i ,*,i
.= il::.rB:
:-. -i:.:'1X.'
I 'i iI 1i
,{ i
I
,l t 1 i ;I
!
THE HON'BLE DT.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
APPEAL SUIT No.404 of 20ll
JUDGMENT:
This Appeal is filed by the appellants-plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgnrent and decree dated23.04.20l I passed in O.S.No.47 of 2004 on rhe file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.
appears that the leamed counsel for the appellants is not evincing proper interest in prosecuting the matter.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed.
/
To,
DL NS
SD/- T.SRINIVAS
DEPUTY REGISTRAR E- SECTION OFFICER
/TTRUE COPY//
:
1 . The Court of the Senior Civil Jude, Karimnagar'(With records) ,1 j:
Z. One CC to M/s. MOHD VALIUR RAHMAN Advocate IOPUC] i: r -.;
3. One CCto SRI K. PRADEEP REDDYAdvocate{OPUCI ;;'. .
j -. l.1aj
4. Two CD CoPies
. ._ r,
, i,:
1
">*"-
HIGH COURT
ir.., , ;li r-
t.
iii+r*, '.:) ..
f ii'q'
,]
DATED:08/0'l/2024
JUDGMENT
AS.No.404 of 2011
APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT.
o
'7.o v
I
,'""-:-..,<br>,.::'-.: : .':- -' '1 t ;:.
j - --i-
r,!1", i
i'') 1 r r l: 't
1
i,,-r'v
* I
ES I , ic$j
ti
.ri,
I
,i
t".'
i,,.
..,, ',:.s
.a: -., tl,
f. I
:.:-'
3i' .:;s' I
fr iil
ffi
I I I I I I
t.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Koppula Preetam Sagar (Dead) Per L.Rs.
Mandala Mahendar Reddy
Koppula Suvarna Rathna
Koppula Thanuja Florance
Koppula Srika
Katkam Bhoomaiah
G. Radha Rani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
