Disposed

Vidyamsetti Subba Rao v. Smt. Madireddy Lakshmi

Telangana HC8 Nov 2024CRP/3421/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court Civil Revision Petition was filed under Article 227 challenging the return of a civil suit for lack of maintainability. The Court directed the trial Court to examine the petitioner's resubmitted petition and explanation.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial Court to examine the resubmitted petition and the petitioner's explanation submitted on 20.09.2024.

Vidyamsetti Subba Rao Vs Smt. Madireddy… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^26s71

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTH^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE^{ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶7

CIVIL REVIS ON PETITION^{NOi 3421 AF 2024}

¶8

Petition under Article²²⁷ ol^{the constitutionof lndia, being aggrieved by} the Docket order dated^{13.09.2024made in l.P. (SR.) No. 3885 ot 2024),(old lP'} (sn) ruo. 3674 of 2024) on the^{file of the courtof the Hon'ble Principalseniorcivil} Judge, at Malkajgiri.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Vidvamsetti Subba Rao, S/o^{RangaRao, aged 52 years, Business,R/o D'No'} i-i[it, i)itiiirru,^{Poduru Mandilam, West Godavari,AndhraPradesh'}

¶11

..Petitioner/^Petitioner

¶12

AND

¶13

Smt. Madireddy^{Lakshmi,Wo Venkata-Ramana,aged} *9'i,58^{y"^",f.9""} House Wife, Rlo^{HouseNo.1-5-511/1, Ayy3Pp?Nagar' Old Alwal'Alwar'} Hyderabad^{- 5OO010, Medchel MalkajgiriDistrict, Ielanganastate'}

¶14

Sri Gowda Rajesh,^{S/o Jaya Raju,qSe-d.38 years,Occ Business'R/o D.No'} - i-J46nZi,7no Ft*t, Plbt No. 2oe, Akshdv Fgrtule^fqq{m.e.nt1I?r nmoeoiar Slatue, Old^{A|wal Alwal, Hyderabad Pin' 500 010' Meclchel} Malkajgiri District,^{Telangana State.}

¶15

The official Receiver,^{o/o. Principal Seniorcivil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri} Dist., at Malkajgiri.

¶16

...Respondents/^ResPondents

¶17

' Counsel for the Petitioner: G' MOHANA^{SAI BABA}

¶18

Counsel fortheRespondents:^{Nos. 1 to 3: NONE APPEARED}

¶19

The Court made the^{following: ORDER:'}

¶20

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI CIVIL REVI SION PETITION No.34 2L^OF 2024

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the^petitioner aggrieved by^the returning of LP.(SR).No.3885 of 2024 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri (for short, 'the trial Court').

¶25

Heard Sri G. Mohana Sai Baba, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the trial Court vide docket order, dated 73.09.2024, returned the subject I.P.(SR). on the^ground that the same is not maintainable. Thereafter, the petitioner has resubmitted the petition on 20.09.2024 by complying with the objections. But, the trial Court refused to receive the same. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner.

¶27

Learned counsel For the petitioner had further contended that the petitioner has resubmitted the petition by clarifying under what provision of law the subject I.P.(SR). is maintainable, but the trial Court is refusing to look into the explanation of the petitioner. Therefore, appropriate orders be^passed in the Civil

¶28

¶29

2 AKS,J C.R.P.No.3421 of 2O2.+

¶30

Revision Petition by directing the trial Court to look into the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate o rders.

¶31

This Court, having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is of the considered view that on the petitioner has resubmitted the subject I.P.(SR). 20.09.2024, giving explanation to the objections raised by the trial Court. The petitioner had contended that he has complied with the objections raised by the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to look into the resubmission of the subject I.P.(SR). and examine the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 20.O9.2024 to the objections raised by it.

¶32

With the above observations/directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this Civil

¶34

Revision Petition, shall stand closed.

¶35

¶36

SD/.A.V.S.^PRASAD ASSFTATIT^RF*GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIONbFFICER

¶37

To, 1. The Principal^{Senior Civil Judge, at tvt3t!1ip[i1lriledchal-Malkajgiri Dist} z. onl cc to^{sRl. GUNisETrlilogarunsAi enen Advocate [oPUC]}

¶38

Two CD^CoPies

VGS

I I ,,

HIGH COURT

DATED:0811112024

ORDER

CRP.No.3421 ot 2024

.I
ai ll S l4
( ()
ss
c
rJ ((1r'
IE l\l0t/ ?ut
*
TCHEI)

¶48

CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISPOSED OF

¶49

%,,tr

Vidyamsetti Subba Rao v. Smt. Madireddy Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidyamsetti Subba Rao v. Smt. Madireddy Lakshmi

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

V.Balraj Vs R.Mallesh

J. Rambai Vs Smt. G.H Shiv Kumari

Md. Shah Jalaluddin Quadri Vs L.Kishan

S Chandra Gopal Vs Sri Aravind Kumar IAS and another

Pagidipalli Nageshwara Rao Vs Smt. Rema Rajeshwari

Sh.Prakash LaI Vs G.H.Shiva kumari