Allowed

Dr. Kodam Rama Krishna v. Singamsetti Komuraiah (died)

Telangana HC6 Sept 2024CRP/2732/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil revision against the Land Grabbing Prohibition Tribunal's order condoning a 195-day delay in filing a petition under Order IX Rule 9 CPC without considering the petitioner's counter. The High Court set aside the order and directed fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 01.07.2024 condoning delay set aside; trial court to decide the condonation application afresh within eight weeks after considering the counter.

Dr. Kodam Rama Krishna Vs Singamsetti… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPIEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶5

CIVIL REVIsroN PETITION NO:2732 OF 2024

¶6

Petition under Articre 227 of the constitution of India, against the order and Decree made in 1.A.No.367 ot ZO23 in L.G.O.p.No.2 oI 2022 dated 01.07.2021 on the fire of the il Additionar District Judge (Tribunar under Land

¶7

Grabbing Prohibition Act) at Warangal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dr. Kodam Rama Krishna, s/o. Sattaiah, Aged about 33 years, occ. Medcial Practitioner. R/o. H.No.1'l-19-47, Temple noaO] XasiOugga, Near Samatha School, wa ra n g a l' wa ra n s a I o'

¶10

o * o. r,..^po N D E N r N o. 1 ": :rtJr:HBniEf, AND, =, "o = ",

¶11

Singamsefti Komuraiah (died), (died)Singamsefti Komuraiah (died), (died)

¶12

Singamsefti Komuraiah (died), (died)Singamsefti Komuraiah (died), (died) 2 PIgiT::nl,Tuj?lqrrrlq.xo'rnirraiah, Ased about 59 years, occ. pvt trmptoyee, r/o. H.No. 1_58/1 , Dharmaram Village, Geedugonda Mandil, Waragnal District.

¶13

Gopala Rajalaxmi, vrv{o ^S^a!a1.a-n{am, Aged about 59 years, occ. Homemaker, r/o H.No.36-1_.1 16, Dharmiram VrriG, 'cEilg""o, Mandat, Waragnal District.

¶14

4 9odasi-Madhavi, w/o. IVlurali, Aged about 49 years, occ. Homemaker, r/o. - H. No. 36-1 -1 2, Dharmaram vira"ge, Geesugorida n,linoat, wri"g;iciii;i"t 5. Godasi.Sujatha, w/o. Satyanaralana. nged aUout 42 years. o";: ii;;;;"i.r, r/o. H.No.36-1 -14, Dharmaram V,ttrg" 6"erugonOa fftinO-ifl Wrrrg;;i^""' District.

¶15

Gandlqlhi Lglha, w/o. Raju,.Aged about 39 years, occ. Homemaker, r/o. H No 36447, Dharmaram Viriage, ceesug5noa tvlanaat. wiiaqnii'oi.iri"t

¶16

7 Kod am Sattia h, ./o cr,,r.q'q#f, .??3:?:)Hri5l[]' o* =^{*s,reirrror.r ens}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NO.2/RESPONDENT NO.2

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

Petition under section 1 5'r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed-in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the ll Addl. District Judge, warangar not to take up the petition U/o, rX Rure 9 cpc in LGoP No.2 of 2022 tiled by the Respondents r to 6 herein for enquiry and not to pass orders.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. NADIPALLY ANANDA RAO

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: --

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

I I

¶24

HON'BLE^{JUSTICEMOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA} CIVIL REVISION^{PETITI ON No.2732of 2o24}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The short^{point beforethis Court in tlie presentCivil Revision} Petition^(CRP) is whether^{the Trial Court could have aliowedthe} condonation^{ofdelay frled by ttre respondents/} Appiication^for petitioners^{for restoringthe Land Grabbing Original Petitionwhich} was earlier^{dismissedfor default on 30'122022'}

¶27

The petitioner^{is aggrievedby the Trial Court (rondoningthe} delay of^{195 days withoutreferring to any of the grounds raisedin the} petitioner's^{Counterto the Application for condonation of delay'}

¶28

On perusal^{of the irnpugned order dated01'O7'2024' it appears} thattheTrialCourthassimplyrepeatedthegror.rndstakenin paragraph^{4 of the affidavithied by the respondentsfor condoning the} delay without^{referringto any documents which the respondents may} have annexed^{insupport of the grounds in paragraph4 of the} affidavit.

¶29

CRP.No.2732^{of 2024is accordingly a-llowed rend the impugned} order dated^Ol.O7 '2024^{is set-aside'The Triai Court is directed to} pass orders^{afresh on the I A frledby the respondents for condonation} of delay^{speciltcallyreferringto the Counterhled bv the petiLioner} herein.^{The Trial Court shall be at libertyto permit the respondents} to hle an^{improvedaffrdavit'if the Trial Court considersit fit to do so'}

¶30

\ ,..fry

¶31

¶32

MB,J CRP.No.2732 of 2O24

¶33

The Trial Court shall pass fresh orders within g weeks from the date of communication of this order. A copy of this order shall a-lso be Communicated to the respondents. It is made clear that the Trial Court shall not grant unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties.

¶34

Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

Sd/. B. SARASWATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1- The ll Additional District Judge (Tribunal under Land Grabbing prohibition Act) at Warangal. ? 9nu QQ^{t-o Sf NadipallyAnanda Rao, Advocate (OPUC)} 3. Two CD Copies Ks/gh

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0 610912024

ORDER

"\ .7. .).
15 0[l ilm
k
?,
\\w

¶46

CRP.No.2732 of²⁰²⁴

¶47

Allowing the^C.R.P Without costs.

Dr. Kodam Rama Krishna v. Singamsetti Komuraiah (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Kodam Rama Krishna v. Singamsetti Komuraiah (died)

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

Basati Sharath Babu Vs Basati alias Kuduthaji Shirisha

R. Krishna Reddy alias Krishna (died) Vs Gottam Sreenivas Rao

Ambala Annapurna, Vs Jangili Aruna

Polam Jaganmohan Reddy (died) Vs Lingampalli Kishan Rao

Kasidi Vijaya, Vs Katam Ravinder Reddy

Smt. Zareena Begum Vs K.Kamala