Allowed

Malladi Malla Reddy v. K. Raghavulu

Telangana HC12 Jan 2024CRP/108/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a civil revision petition seeking direction to the trial court to consider additional written arguments filed by the petitioners in a 2012 suit. The revision was disposed of at the admission stage, with the court directing the trial court to consider the arguments and decide the suit expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to consider additional written arguments filed by petitioners and decide the suit strictly in accordance with law within three months.

Malladi Malla Reddy Vs K. Raghavulu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 1OE OF 2024

¶7

Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, against the Order dated 19.12.2023 made in l.A No.848/2023 in O.S.No.13412O12 on the file of the Court of the ll Addl. District Judge at Warangal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Malladi Malla Reddy, S/o Venkat Ram Reddy, Aged. 57 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture,

¶10

Malladi Sreenivas Reddy, S/o Malla Reddy, Aged. 32 Yrs., Occ. Pvt Service,

¶11

Both are Rl/o H.No-3-10-140, Road No.2, College Road, Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal.

¶12

Malladi Srilath, D/o Malla Reddy and W/o Kondeti Sandeep Reddy, Aged 31 Yrs., Rl/o Flat No. 203, 2nd Floor, Sri. Jaganmatha White House, Pochamma Maidan, Warangal, Occ. Household.

¶13

...Petitioners

¶14

AND

¶15

1 K. Raghavulu, S/o Kanthaiah, Aged. 43 yrs., Occ. Agriculture, 2 K. Yellaiah, S/o Kanthaiah, Aged. 43 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture,

¶16

Both Rl/o Oorugunda Village, Athmakur Mandal, Warangal District

¶17

3 Sircilla Madhavi, W/o Rajaiah, Aged. 56 Yrs., R/o H.No. 1-7-300, Pragathi Nagar, Revenue Colony, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Occ. House hold.

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. RAKESH SANGHI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: ---

¶21

The Court made the following: OROER

¶22

¶23

THI) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶24

(IIVIL REVISION PETITION No.l08 OF 2024

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heald Mr. Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioners

¶27

In view of nature of the relief sought in the present revision,

¶28

this revision is disposed of at the admission stage dispensing with notice to tht: respondents.

¶29

The respondents I to 3 filed a suit vide O.S.No. 134 of 2012 against the petitioners herein seeking perpetual injunction. According to the petitirners, they have filed I.A.No.848 of 2023 seeking ro frame additional ir;sues. They have also filed I.A.No. 1500 of 2023 to re-open I.A.No.848 of 2023 to receive additional writren arguments and same is pending. l.ccording to the petitioners herein, they have filed supplementrrry written arguments in the registry of the trial Court vide Sy.No.4851 of 2024. Thus, according to them, they have filed written arguments r,n 03.10.2023, additional rvritten argumenrs on 19.12.2023 and supple nentary written arguments on 02.0 I .2014 along with binding pre:edents mentioned therein, fbr consideration by the trial Court. The rpprehension of the petitioners is that trial Court may not

¶30

¶31

consider the same in^{whicheventit would lead to a grave miscarriage}

¶32

ofjustice. Therefore,^{they filedthe presentrevision.}

¶33

Petitioners have hled copies^{of the said written arguments and}

¶34

mentioned SR.No.485 1 of^{2024.Accordingto them, I.A.No.848 of} 2023 and I.A.No.^I 500 of^{2023arepending.Suit is of the year2012.}

¶35

In the light ol the^{aforesaid submission, this revision is}

¶36

disposed of directing the^leamed II^{Additional DistrictJudge,at} Warangal to consider the^{aforesaid writtenalgumentsdated} 03.10.2023, additional^{written arguments dated 19.12-2023and} supplementary written arguments^{dated 02.01.2014along with binding} precedents mentioned therein filed by^{the petitioners herein and decide} the said I.A.No.848 ol 2023 strictly in^{accordancewith law. As} discussed supra, suit is of^{the year 2012. Therefore, trial Court is} directed to decide the suit^{itself strictly in accordancewith law as} expeditiously as^{possiblepreferably within three months from the date} of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

As a sequel, the miscellaneous^petitions, if^{any, pendingin the} revision sha ll stand closed.

¶38

//TRUE COPY//

¶39

SD/. V.HARI PRASAD ASSTSTANTAEGITTRAR ' ./ s/

¶40

SECTION OFFICER

¶41

To,

¶42

The ll Addl. District^{Judgeat Warangal}

¶43

One CC to SRl. RAKESH^{SANGHIAdvocate} [OPUCI 3. Two CD Copies NS

HIGH CIf,URT

DATED:1210112024

ORDER

CRP.No,108 of 2024

ot 1E(+
t-7-
:) #a
14
to
f
")
*
F/clll

¶51

DISPOSING THE CRP

¶52

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶53

@o{..' 'x{*a-/

Malladi Malla Reddy v. K. Raghavulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malladi Malla Reddy v. K. Raghavulu

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

Modala Mallesh Vs K. Subramanyam

Kashaboina Rama Vs Sri. Rahul Bojja, Ias.

P.Rohith Reddy Vs M.Bhujanga Reddy

D. Ram Reddy Vs a. Jagadeeshwar

Sbpl Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Future Lifestyle Fashions Ltd.

Golla Kistamma Vs Sri Narayana Reddy