Second appeal dismissed for want of instructions. Counsel stated the appellant had no instructions and case was for default.
Second Appeal No. 40 of 2010 is dismissed for default without order as to costs.
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.
[321s ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OFTELANGANA
FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHARANI
SECO ND APPEAL NO: 40 OF 2010
Between:
Ramesh Chand, S/o Khan Chand Business R/oMajamjahi Market Hyderabad
...APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Appeal under section 100 of CPC againstjudgment and decree passedin AS No. 510/07 dt. 12-10-09 on the file ofChief Judge, City Civil Court' Hyderabad agsinst the Judgment and decreedt.27-08-2007 passed by the Vl Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabadin OS No. 1936/01.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2010(SAMP. NO: 58 OF 2010)
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, theHigh Courtmaybe pleased to stay all further executionproceedings inpursuance to the Judgmentand Decree passed in AS No. 510/07 dt. 12-10-09 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the Judgment and decreedt. 27-08-07 passedby the Vl Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Cum City SmallCausesCourt at Hyderabad in OS No. 1936/01pending disposal appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI.R A ACHUTHANAND
rrs
Counsel for the Respondents: G JAYA REDDY
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HO\OIII{ABLE Dr..lIJS'I'ICFI G. ITADIJA RANI
SECOND APPEAL No.40 of 2010
JUDGMENT:
J'his Second Appeal is filcd by thc appcllanr-appellant-plainrifl against thejuclgnrent and declee datcd 12.10.2009 passed in A.S. No.5l0 of 2001 by the('hicl' Judge, C'iry Civil Court, lIyderabad, partly allou,ing the -jLrdgnrent and decrec dated 27.08.2007 passed in O.S No. 126 o1'200 I by the Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad.
counsel for the appcllant reported tirat he had no instruclions lrout his clicnt though he rrrrdc all eflorrs bv rnaking phone calls and addressing Ietters. It appears that the appellant is not cvincing anv interest in prosecuting the rraltcr
as to costs
As a scqrrel, n.r isccllaneo r-rs pctitions, pending if any shall stand
\
To,
closecl
SD/.M.RAMANAKRISHNA , DEPUTY REGTSTRAR ,/
//TRUE COPY//
e--
SECTIONOFFICER
b
HIGH COURT
DATED:0210212024
ORDER
SA.No.4O o12010
:: __..---\r
i*t /7:':.: "r,.r.-. ---...
c, .^.. )'
t\i\r
1<br>:)IJ.') I 7 lihY ?0?l :' l
,i<br>q.,
,.j * !si;;',rc
DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT THE APPEAL c{'3
At-='r-APV
Ramesh Chand
Smt. Leelavathi Bai Agarwal
Upender Kumar Agarwal
Nirmal Kumar Agarwal
G. Radha Rani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
