Dismissed¶40

Bandi Ravinder Reddy v. Nookala, Bandi Pushpalatha

Telangana HC12 Nov 2025CRP/258/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRP No. 258 of 2020, Telangana High Court at Hyderabad - dismissed for non-prosecution on 12.11.2025 (Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda). Article 227 petition by defendants 1 and 2 (Bandi Ravinder Reddy, Bandi Sudamshu Reddy) against docket order dated 23.01.2020 in O.S. No. 210 of 2013, VI Additional District Judge, Mahabubabad. Respondent 1: Nookala Bandi Pushpalatha (plaintiff); respondents 3 and 4: Sri Thirumala Industries. Interim stay vacated; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the revision petitioners; the interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. ¶40

Bandi Ravinder Reddy Vs Nookala, Bandi Pushpalatha — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁴³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITI oN NO: 258 OF 2020

¶7

Petition under lrlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the docket order in O.S.NO. 21O ot 2013 dated 23.01.2020 on the file court of the Vl Additional Disklct Judge, Mahabubabad Diskict.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Bandi Ravinder Reddy, S/o.Narayana reddy, Age. 65^yrs, Occ. Agriculture. R/o. Ayyavaripally village, Kuravi Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

¶10

Bandi Sudamshu Reddy, S/o. Ravinder Reddy, Age.41^years, Occ. Agriculture Both are R/o,Ayyavaripally village, Kuravi Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

¶11

...PETITIONER/DEFENDANTS^,I & 2

¶12

AND

¶13

Nookala, Bandi Pushpalatha, Wo.Madhava Reddy, Age 57^years Occ. Household Rl/o Ayyagaripally Village,Mahabubabad Dist

¶14

...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶15

Sri Thirumala lndustries, represented by its Managing^partners l.Thallada Ambarisha, S/o.Late Narsaiah, Age 56^years Occ. Business, Rl/o H.No.1-5-24 and 25 , Yellandu Road, Mahabubabad Dist

¶16

Sri Thirumala lndustries, represented by^its Managing^partners 2.Prathapani Sridhar S/o.Vishwanadham , Age 44^years Occ. Business, R/o^{H. No.6-3-11} 2 , Court Road, Mahabubabad town and Dist

¶17

...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS NO.3 & 4

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High} Court^{maybe pleasedto} grant stay all further proceedings including operation of the Docket Order dated 23.O'l.2O2O in O.S.NO. 210 ot 2013 dated 25.11.2019 on the file Vl Additional District Judge, Mahabubabad Dist^pending disposal of the C.R.P.

¶20

IANo:'t oF 2025

¶21

Between:

¶22

Nookala @-Bandi pushpalatha, W/o.Madhava Reddv 57 vears occ. noJJei,oiE nTJn1,vrllJib.,rv vrase,Mahabubabad 6istse

¶23

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.1

¶24

Asricurture

¶25

'' Rili,[:Y5}?,T,,Xifl,Xr+l[";H11]318,1,ifl,?^SflB"fjo,5?i,p";"

¶26

Bandi Sudamshu Reddy, S/o. Ravinder Reddy, Age.41 years, Occ Agriculture Both are R/o,

¶27

(Both are R/o' Ayyavaripaily vilrage, Kuravi Mandar, Mahabubabad District.)

¶28

3 Sri Thirumala lndustries. reor e1sru?,:."$hT;;,fliii:?'[i[[s,{trli,y8:::Bf^.?#:T,ilrift [:ii,.

¶29

4 j:p.ssi:Hr;fr .'-f rlriil

¶30

EI#iHf^in1[1rgf iffi+il,}l,ieTa',

¶31

Petition under section 151.cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the p"irtioii, in" r,gn''court mav be preased to I^Tti,,ff";:1;l.r3?i#^{in rn No.bl ,i zdl, aiilqlozozt,--.p*irIg} ii#ijl

¶32

COUNSEI for thE PEtitiONEr(S):SRI. GADDAM KIRAN KUMAR (NOT PRESENT)

¶33

Counsel forthe Respondents: K RAM REDDY

¶34

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

THE HON'BLE SRI .TUSTICE NARSING RAO^NANDIKONDA

¶36

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.258 Of 2020

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

When the matter was listed on 10.1L.2O25, none appeared for the revision petitioners. Therefore, the matter was directed^to be listed today under the caption for dismissal'.

¶39

Today, when the matter is listed under the caption for dismissal', none appears for the revision^{petitioners.Learned} counsel for the respondents is^present.

¶40

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to^{costs.Interim} stay granted earlier shall stand vacated.

¶41

Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall^stand closed.

¶42

SD/. A SREENIVASA^REDDY AS T REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

s ON OFFICER

To,

onalDistrictJudgeMahabubabad,MahabubabadDistrict.