Dismissed¶45

Hazi Mohd. Ghouse v. Syed Zaki Hussain Razvi

Telangana HC17 Feb 2025CRP/2678/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court; Justice N. Tukaramji; Civil Revision Petition No. 2678 of 2025; I.A.No.1 of 2016; CRPMP.No.162 of 2016; condonation of delay of 36 days; Section 5 of Limitation Act; Section 115 of the C.P.C.; order dated 05-08-2015; I.A.No.30 of 2015; O.S.No.1717 of 2015; V Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad; Hazi Mohd. Ghouse v. Syed Zaki Hussain Razvi and M/s. Fitness Gym Kind; dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

None; the delay-condonation application (I.A.No.1 of 2016) and the Civil Revision Petition were both dismissed as infructuous, and miscellaneous applications stood closed as a sequel. ¶45

Hazi Mohd. Ghouse Vs Syed Zaki Hussain Razvi — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

t0I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶6

l.A.No.1 of 2016^{(CRPMP.No.162} of 20161 IN/AND

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2678 OF 2025

¶8

Petition under Section 115 of the C.P.C aggrieved by the order dated 05-08-2015 in lA.No.30 of 2015 in OS.No.1717 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Hazi Mohd. Ghouse, S/o. Hazi Mohd. Jahangir, Muslim, aged about 60^years, Occ: Business R/o. 3-5-377, Vittalwadi, Narayanguda, Hyderabad.

¶11

...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

¶12

AND

¶13

Syed Zaki Hussain Razvi, S/o. Syed ft/luzaffar Hussain Razvi, Muslim, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Business R/o. 14-7521NB, Opp: Amadera function Hall, Musheerabad, Hyderabad,

¶14

M/s. Fitness Gym Kind, 2nd floor 3-5-377, Narayanguda, Vittalwadi Hyderabad.

¶15

,.. RESPON DENT/RESPONDENT/DEFEN DANT

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201

¶17

P. NO: 162 OF 20161

¶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 of 36 days in filing the CRP.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Mohd. lsmail, representing Sri R.A. Achuthanand

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.{: Sri P. Lakshma Reddy

¶21

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶22

. ., i..r .j^.. .1i.;,:,j:...f-.

¶23

, !"j ..:-r.-',; .i'+* .i-i:t49,:#nii:r.::!.:ti'i,'* . r.t!:1;:=*._:.:. ....;:;_5ffi#i!."i1r

¶24

CE N.,TU

¶25

COMMON ORDER:

¶26

I.A.ltlo.1 of 2016 has .been filed by the petitioner to condone the delay of (36) days in fi No.34503 cf 2015.

¶27

. ,:.:" .

¶28

The civil Revision Petition has ,been filed by the petitione aggrieved by the order dated 05.08.2015 passed in I.A,No.,30 of 2015 in O.S.No.1717 of 2O15 on the file of the V Additiona! ,senior Civil

¶29

Mr. Mohd. Ismail, learned counsel repres-enting ,,: Sri R. A. Ar:huthanand, learned counset for the petitionei'submits that the cause in the civil revision' petition does not surviver for., j adjudication and it has become infructuous. j.,, '',: ,".

¶30

4, Reco.ding the said submission, the I.A.No.1 of 2016,andi,,CRp (SR) are dismissed as infructuo us. There costs.

¶31

As a sequel, miscellaneoUs applicatio

stand closed.

I I

/TRUE COPY/

SD/. N.SRIHARI REGISTRAR OFFICER