Disposed

Sanjay @ Manik Rao v. Kurbuzay Neelakant Rao

Telangana HC2 Aug 2024CRP/2239/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition challenged the appellate court's refusal to accept property attachment as security in place of depositing half the decretal amount as directed in an earlier revision. The High Court found no infirmity and disposed of the petition granting liberty to seek modification before the earlier court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to apply to the court which passed CRP.No.1999 of 2022 for modification of the direction to deposit half the decretal amount.

Sanjay @ Manik Rao Vs Kurbuzay Neelakant Rao — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE SECOND^{DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY FOUR}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEK.SURENDER}

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION^{NO: 223I OF 2024}

¶6

Petition under^{Article 227 of lhe constitution of lndia against the order dated} 22-04-2023^{Passedin l.A.No.52l2023in A.S.No.312022 0n the file of the courtof} the V Additional^{District Judge Nizamabad, at Bodhan'}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sanjay@ManikRao,ShankerRaoAged56-y.ears,Oc-c,Agriculture'Rl/o53 Jr"isbfi ioio^{vittagel, Karta B.K.TaluqaBiloti,'Nanded District, lvlaharashtra.}

¶9

... Petitioner/APPellant

¶10

AND

¶11

Kurbuzav Neelakant^{Rao, S/o.Laxman,Aged' 46 Yrs, Occ'} -Agriculture'^R:/o'1- b6li B-*ii;rprtty^{vittage,BodhantvlandalNizamabad District,T S'}

¶12

...RespondenUPlaintiff

¶13

IA NO: 1 0F 2024

¶14

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition, the High Court may be pleased to} ;r;p;il the operation^{oi the D"cr"eand Judgement dated22-02-2021 passedin} OS'1o.S+IZOf^{b by the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, pending disposalof the above} CRP in the interests^{of justice.}

¶15

Counsel for the^Petitioner : Sri M.V.V.Baswa^Raj

¶16

Counsel for the^ResPondent : Sri G.Dinesh^Patil

¶17

The Gourt made^{the following} : ORDER

¶18

¶19

I I

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶21

C.R.P No.2239 OF 2024

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the impugned order dated 22.04.2023 in I.A.No.52 of 2023 in A.S.No.3 of 2022, whereby V Additional District Judge, Nizamabad District refused to accept the propert5r provided by the petitioner herein for the purpose of attachment complying with the direction of this Court in CRP.No.1999 of 2O22. This Court vide order dated 21. 12.2022 a.llowed CRP.No.1999 of 2022 subject to condition of revision petitioner herein u,ho is the defendant in the suit depositing half of the decretal amount.

¶24

Without complying with the orders passed by this Court,, petition was filed before the 1.! appellate Court seeking direction that the property of the petitioner may be attached as security in pursuance of the orders of this Court in CRP.No.1999 of 2022 directing half of the decretal amount should be deposited.

¶25

The said alternative as prayed by the petitioner was refused by the 1"r appellate Court on the ground that it

¶26

1 \

¶27

would amount to modifying the orders^{passed by this Court} in CRP.No.1999 of 2022.

¶28

I do not find any infirmity with the impugned^order d.ated 22.04.2023. However,^{learned counsel appearingfor} the revision petitioner would^{submit that he seeksto} approach the Court which has^{passed the ordersdated} 22.04.2023 in CRP.No.1999 of^{2022 and file a application} seeking modification of the direction^{to deposit half of the} decreta,l amount.

¶29

Accordingly, the Civil^{RevisionPetition is disposed off} granting liberty as sought by the^{petitionerherein.} Miscellaneous Petitions,^{pending if any, shall stand closed.}

¶30

Sd/- V.^{HARI PRA} SAD ASSISTANT^{REGISTR AR}

¶31

//TRUE^COPY//

¶32

SECTION^OFFICER

¶33

To.'-'',. Tn" V Additional District Judge Nizamabad' at Bodhan' ,. il bC to^{sri tirt'v v'easwa-Raj'Advocate-[o.PUCl}

¶34

;. o;; cc^{to sri G'Dinesh Patil' Advocate[oPUCl}

¶35

Two^{CD CoPies}

Svs/gh C4rL

HIGH COURT

DATE D:0 210812024

o B lrlE s 14 /e.
(
v{<br>/,
oc ($r
13 tiBr ilet z
{"
oFsr ,AIcHEO I

¶41

ORDER

¶42

CRP.No.2239 of 2024

¶43

DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITON

¶44

r Ltp
i*\dzq

Sanjay @ Manik Rao v. Kurbuzay Neelakant Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay @ Manik Rao v. Kurbuzay Neelakant Rao

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

Smt. Naseem Begum and 5 Others Vs M/S Awagaman Road Carriers Ltd, Hyd and 4 Others

Kommineni Seetharamaiah, Vs Nalla NArasimha Rao

Ponnam Rambadram Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Abdul Sattar , Bablu Vs the Managing Director and Another

Jampala Urmila Vs Md.Azeemuddin and Anr.

Poloju Raju, Parkal [M], Warangal Dist. Vs Singirkonda Ravinder, Karimnagar Dist., and Anr.