M/s. Neni Hi Tec Club Pvt. Ltd., Vs Raj Kishna… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

M/s. Neni Hi Tec Club Pvt. Ltd., Vs Raj Kishna… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief; the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution without costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were directed to stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 3-2-2011 in I.A. No. 3375 of 2010 in O.S. No. 41 of 2009 (1st Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad) should be entertained and allowed.

Court's answer

When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners informed the Court that he had no instructions to argue the case.

Ratio / Principle

In view of counsel having no instructions, the Court held it had no other option except to dismiss the revision for non-prosecution, and accordingly dismissed the Civil Revision Petition for non-prosecution with no costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Tirumala Devi Eada, JJ.; order per Shavili, J.), 3 February 2025, C.R.P. No. 1509 of 2011: a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 3-2-2011 in I.A. No. 3375 of 2010 in O.S. No. 41 of 2009 on the file of the 1st Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (petitioners being respondents 1 & 4, respondents being plaintiffs/respondents 2 & 3; a companion stay petition I.A. No. 2 of 2011 / CRPMP No. 2137 of 2011 under Section 151 CPC sought suspension of further proceedings including trial pending disposal of the CRP). When the matter was taken up for hearing, counsel for the petitioners informed the Court that he had no instructions to argue the case; the Court therefore held it had no option except to dismiss the revision for non-prosecution, dismissed the Civil Revision Petition for non-prosecution without costs, and directed that pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. The merits of the challenged order were not adjudicated and no precedent was cited or discussed.

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY ,THE^{THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENry FIVE}

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUSTICETIRUMALA DEVI EADA}

CIVIL REVISION^{PETITIONNO:1509 OF 2011}

Petition Under^{Article227 ol constitutionof lndiaaggrievedby the} orderdated3-2.2011inl.A.No.3375of2010ino.S.No.41ot2009onthefile oftheCourtofthelAdditionalChiefJudge,CityCivilCourt,Secunderabad.

Between:

1 M/s. Neni Hitech Club^{Pvt. Ltd',, Rep. by its Managing D.ireclor' No 169' Lal} ii;;gib; oto^{Ait port Road New Boweripallv' secunderabad}

2 N.Shekar Reddv, S/o.^{Late N.Laxmi NarsimhaR/o Plot No' 97' RoadNo 72'} Prashasan Nagir,^{JubileeHills' Hyderabad'}

...PETITIONERS/^{Respondents No' 1 & 4}

AND

1 Rai Kishenii Pershad,^{S/o' Late Raja Hari Kishen Pershad} '^{Rlo l-35-46212} eHeL Cotony,^{Rasoolpura Secunderabad}

Prem Kishenii Pershad,^{S/o. Late Raja Hari Kishan Pershad} 'Rlo'^1-35-46211' eHeL Cotony,^{Rasoolpura Secunderabad}

3 M.Ankineedu Prasad,^{Manaoing Director andChairman,M/s'NeniHi.Tech} ctril'ir;:riJ,^{No.l-dg, irLEun"glowold Air Port Road, New Bownpallv'} Secunderabad^{Cantonment, Secunderabad'}

4 A.satvanandam. Director,^{M/s. Neni Hitech Club P!t' Ltd} '^{No' 169' Lal} A;;;i;;'oil'Ai,^p"tt n"rJ'^{New Bowenpallv,secunderabad Cantonment'} S#i"i.jiiu1i.'iRi^{N;. iin'a +} "t" not n6ce6sary^{in thisPetition)}

...RESPONDENTS/^Plaintiffs -^{Respondents 2 & 3}

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2011(CRPMP.^{NO: 2'137OF20111}

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition'th; High Court may qt-qlg?:"q:19."'} ri"V J "ff further^{proceedings in pursuance to the order daled 3-2-2O11 in IA NO'} liis ot 2010^{in os.ruo qinoog on the fite of the court of I Addl. chief Judge,} City Civil Court,^{SecunderaUaO inctuOingthe trial in the suit' pending disposal of} the above CRP

7

?i*-^{-;- -.-}

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CH. PURUSHOTTAM

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. I &2 : SRI D. HANUMANTHA Rl\O

The Court made the following ORDER:

HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND

HON'BI F SMT JUSTICE TIRUMAI-A DEVI EADA

C.R.P.No.1509 of 2011

ORDER: /Per F/o i'bte Si Ju ie ;lbhina Ktnar Sbauili)

\When the rratter is talen up for hearing, learned

counsel appearing for the petitione$ had informed this

Court that.he has no instructions to argue the case.

In view of the same, this Court has no other option

except to dismiss the revision for non-prosecution.

Accordingly, the Gvil Revision Petition is dismissed

for non-prosecution. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitioru, iI any, pending shall stand

closed. Sd/. P. CH.^NAGABHUSHAM BA AS T REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

S CTION^OFFICER

i'ln'Sf.l.'3[i]3li:f',Hfl"sfi^{Y,?xl,:'f,il;?iilt?3;,i3i'}

One CC^{to SRl.D- HANUMANTHARAO' Advocate IOPUCI}

Two CD^CoPies

kul/gh19-

i

HIGH COURT

DATED:O310212025

.r::=
,iHE SI4 14:
o .
oJ
2 E I'lAl] ZO25
)f)P?
r+
t *
D1 -- 5 ir,,ii i 90
S-::;

ORDER

CRP.No.1509 of 2011

DISMISSING THE CI/II- RIVISION PETITION FOR

NON PROSECUT'ION \ITHOUT COSTS

6)
r8\zlas