The single judge bench dismissed a writ petition for non-prosecution/default. The petitioner was absent during the hearing despite the matter being listed for dismissal. Consequently, the court had no option but to dismiss the petition seeking to quash a notice of sale.
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.
[3302 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TE GANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Ju tctio n)
I\4ONDAY, THE SECOND D OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
WRIT PETITION NO: 42219 OF 2015
Between:
A.Anjaneyulu Goud, s/o A. Rama Swamy, aged about 50years, r/o H.No. 8-198, (Old-No.-8-67), First floor, Lakshminagar Colony, Jillelaguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndiapraying thatin the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiled therewith, theHigh Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of [/andamus, to declare the action of the2nd respondent in issuing the Notice of Sale in E.P.No. 3/BRCUB/2015 dt.23-'11-2015proposing to sell the petitionersproperty bearing H.No. 8-198(Old H.No. 8-67)First floor on Plot No. 25 in Sy.No. 24 and 25 situated at Block No. 8, Laxmi Nagar Colony, Jillelaguda village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District, on 29-12-2015, without considering the request made by thepetitioner topay the entire decreetal amount till the end of March, 2016, as being illegal, arbitrary anduniust and consequently
3&-
set aside the same by directing the respondents to grant time till the end of March, 2016 so as to enable the petitioner to pay the entire decreetal amount.
l.A. NO: 1OF 201s(WPMP. NO:54475 OF 2015)
Petition under section i s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the sate of petitioner,s property bearing H.No.B- 198 (old H.No.8-67) Ground Flooron plot No.25 in Sy.No.24 and 25 situated at Block No.B, Laxmi Nagar colony, Jillelaguda Village, saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District pursuant to the impugned Notice of sale issued by the 2nd respondent in E.P.No.3/ BRCUB/2015 dt.23.11.201s, pending disposat of the above Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SURVI PRAVEEN GOUD
Counsel for the Respondents No.1,2&4 : Gp FOR COOPERATION
Counsel forthe Respondents No.3&5:
The Court made the following: ORDER
(
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEK.SARATH
W-P.No-42219 of 2O15
ORDER:
When the matter came upfor hearing on 06.08.2024, there was no representationfor the petitioner, therefore the matter was directedto be listed today underthe caption'for dismissa.l".In spite of it, today also there is no representation for thepetitioner.Therefore,this Court has no option except todismissthe writ petition for non- prosecution/default.
prosecution/default. No order as tocosts.
petition, shall stand d19m!999d.
SD/.V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
secr6ffiHcen
To, 1. One CC to SRI SURVI PRAVEEN GOUD, Advocate. [OPUC]
t
HIGH COURT
DATED:0210912024
ORDER
WP.No.42219 ot 2015
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FOR NON.PROSECUTION/DEFAULT WITHOUT COSTS
A. Anjaneyulu Goud
The State of Telangana
Bhavana Rishi Co-op. Urban Bank Limited
K. Sarath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
