Dismissed¶46

M/s Jagavis Kritunga Bar and Restaurant v. Mandra Usha Reddy

Telangana HC9 Oct 2025CMA/209/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CMA dismissed as infructuous without costs; Telangana High Court; Order 43 Rule 1 CPC appeal against interlocutory order and decree dated 22-11-2022 in I.A. No.341 of 2022 in O.S. No.383 of 2022 (Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at Kukatpally); appellant: M/s Jagavis Kritunga Bar and Restaurant; respondents: Mandra Usha Reddy and Kritunga Restaurant and Franchises LLP; related petitions: condonation of 62 days' delay (S.5 Limitation Act), dispensing certified copy and suspension of impugned order (S.151 CPC); presiding officer: Gadi Praveen Kumar; decided 09-10-2025.

What did the court decide?

The cause in the appeal having become infructuous (as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant), the Court dismissed the CMA as infructuous, without costs. ¶46

M/s Jagavis Kritunga Bar and Restaurant Vs Mandra Usha Reddy — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

13487 l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 209 OF 2023

¶7

Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC aggrieved by the order and decree dated 22-11-2022 in 1.A.No.341 of 2022in OS.No.3B3 ot 2022 on the file of the Court of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy Districdt at Kukatpally.

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s Jagavis Kritunga Bar and Restaurant, 4O-1-52C, Acharya Ranga Road, Mahatma Gandhi Road, MG Road, Vijayawada, AP- 520010

¶10

...AppellanUDefendant

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Mandra Usha Reddy, Wo Mandra Linga Reddy, aged about 58 years, Occ Business, F/o 18, Cyber Meadows, Near Masjid Road, Kondapur, Hyderabad

¶13

2 Kritunga Restaurant and Franchises LL.P, Having its office at^'18, Cyber Meadows, Near Masjid Road, Kondapur, Hyderabad Rep by Mr. Ananth Reddy Mandra.

¶14

...Respondents/Plaintiffs

¶15

lA NO:^'t OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the Certified Copy of the reasoned Order dated 22.11.2022 in lA No.341 ot 2022 in OS No.383 ot 2O22 and lA plaint and documents, permit the Petitioner herein to file the Fair Copy of the order and the Hon'ble Court may peruse the same and the Hon'ble Court.

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay for filing the instant CMA of 62 no. of days from the date of the impugned order dated 22.11.2022 in lA No 341 of 2022 in OS No.383 of 2O22. The delay in filing the instant CMA is neither deliberate nor wanton. The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the instant Appiication.

¶19

IA NO: 3 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the cirt;trnstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High court r ly be pleasedto_} iuspend the operation^{ol the impugned order dated 22.11.20i2 ,n lA No. 341 of} 2022 in OS No.^{383of 2022.}

¶21

Counsel for the^{Appellant: Sri PRAMODMALGI'Advocaterel'l lsenting} Ms BICHALA ARUNA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SRI SHEELA NATESHAN}

¶23

The Court made the^{following:JUDGMENT}

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE GADI PRA'EEN I(UMAR

¶25

C.M.A. No.209 of 2023

¶26

.IUDiiMEi.{T:

¶27

Sri Pramcd Malgi, leamed counsel representing Ms.Bichaia r\rura, iear:red counsel for the appeilant subrnits that the causc in the Appeal has become infrucfuous.

¶28

rtei;or'<iing the same. the present CMA is disr.rissei :s

¶29

inirui rt.rorls No costs

¶30

: ..i,s a :iequel. miscelianeous petitions pending rf anv shali

¶31

stanC cioscd.

¶32

SD/- N SRI OEPUTY RE RAR

¶33

//TRUE COPY//