Dismissed

Raju Gaidankar and Another v. J.Amboji and 3 Others

Telangana HC17 Oct 2025CRP/1443/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil revision petition against an interim order in a pending suit was taken up for hearing; counsel for the petitioners submitted that the cause did not survive and had become infructuous. The High Court recorded the submission and dismissed the revision petition as infructuous, with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed as infructuous on petitioners' own submission; no order as to costs.

Raju Gaidankar and Another Vs J.Amboji and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH^{DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA}

¶5

CIVIL REVISION P^{ETITION NO:12143OF 2021}

¶6

Petition under Arlicle 227 of^{the constitutionof lndiaaggrievedby the order} dated 23t081202'1 in^{l.A.No313 0t 2020 in os No. 28740f 2020 0n the file of the} Court of the lX Junior^{Civil Judge, CrtyCivil Court at Hyderabad}

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1. Raju Gaidankar, S/o. Srimanth Gaidankar, Aged about 44^years' Oct. Business, R/o.H^{No.13-344413tN3' lmmampura, Puranapul,Jiaguda'} Hyderabad-06

¶9

2.UmeshHotkar,S/o.siddojiHotkar,Agedabout42years,OccBusiness' R/o. H.No.13-3-566,^{lmmampura,Puranapul,Jiaguda' Hyderabad-06'}

¶10

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶11

AND

¶12

1 J.Amboji, S/o. Late^{J Narsoji,Aged about 75 years, Occ. Business,} R/o. H. No.1 3-3 -65211 ,^{PutanapulRoad,Jiaguda, Hyderabad-06, Telangana} State.

¶13

2 Smt. J Laxmi Bai, Wo.^{J.Amboji, Aged about 68 years' OccHouse Hold,} R/o H No.'13-3 -652t1,^{Puranapul Road' Jiaguda, Hyderabad-06, Telangana} State

¶14

J Smt. J.Shankar, S/o. J.Amboji,^{Aged about 50 years,Occ Advocate,} R/o H.No.13-3-65211 ,^{Puranapul Road,Jiaguda, Hyderabad-06, Telangana} State.

¶15

4 Smt. J.Padma^{Bai, Wo. J Shankar' Agedabout47 years, OccHouse Hold'} R/o. H. No.¹ 3-3^-652t1 .^{P ur anapul Road,Jiaguda, Hyderabad-06, Telangana} state

¶16

...RES'.NDENTS/'ET'r..NERS/PLA,NT,FFS

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF²⁰²¹

¶18

¶19

_- Petif,o" ,"der Section^{,15,1 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesStated In} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to} ,u.p""J the operation^{oi order dated23tOgl2O21passedin LA.No. 313 of 2020} tN o s No 287 4^{of 2020 on the file of the court of the lX Junior civil Judge, city} CivilCourtatHyderabad,pendingdisposaloftheaboveRevisionpetition

¶20

Counsel for the^{Petitioners:SRl.RAVI KUMAR VADLAKONDA} Counsel for the Respondents:SRl^{MANIK LAL YADAV}

¶21

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RA.: NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION pETITION No. I443 1,f 2O2t

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

When the matter is taken up for hearinr learned counsel for the petitioners submits that cause in thr present revision petition does not sulive for adjudication ar d the same has become infructuous.

¶25

Recording the aforcsaid submission of k: i-ncd counsel foi. the petitioners, this revision petition t: dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to cos

¶26

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pen ling if any, shall

¶27

stand closed.

¶28

SD/-N.CH,I 'IDRA SEKHAR RAO I I EPUTY REGISTRAR

¶29

//TRUE COPY//

¶30

.'1=-.--.-=,'

¶31

i SECTION OFFICER I

¶32

To,

¶33

1 The lX Junior Civil Judge, City Crvil Court at Hyderab: i 2 One CC to Sri. Ravi Kumar Vadlakonda, Advocate [Opt C] 3. One CC to Sri. I/anik Lal Yadav, Advocate [OpUC] 4 Two CD Copies.

¶34

PM/SA M/

I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1711012025

ORDER

GRP.No.1443^{ot 2021}

¶40

?'
lHE {i
(
oo
1 2 l-rl
* t
rou o

¶41

DISMISSING^{THE CIVIL REVISIONPETI TION} AS INFRUCTUOUS

¶42

t
v
7

Raju Gaidankar and Another v. J.Amboji and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Gaidankar and Another v. J.Amboji and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R Sudhakar Rao Vs Sports Authority of Telangana State

Mirza Mohammed Hussain Baig Vs Mr. Mohammed Shujuddin

Mirza Mohammed Hussain Baig Vs Mr. Mohammed Shujuddin and 2 others

Kade Ramesh Kumar and 2 others Vs Peddapelli Vinoda

Raju Gaidankar Vs J.Narender

Smt. Sarika P. Kulkarni Vs Praveen Dilip Kulkarni