A civil revision petition challenging an order in a pending suit; counsel for respondents submitted the suit had been dismissed, making the revision petition infructuous, and the court accordingly dismissed it as infructuous, closing pending miscellaneous applications.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[33851
TELANGANA HrcH couRr.?+ I+tSIiIioF
WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL "-"iwo iHousAND AND TWENTY FlvE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESMT JUSTICE K' SUJANA
clvlL REVISIONPETITION NO:32520F 2018
ffi +Hlfitti.i"-fi,Itrel+f+f iltil#ll##':''i*'[*i in the interestof iustice'
Between:
MEHABBoBPASHA,S/o Chinna Shalam,,,sgg...4-0y,"'occ.Mutavali R/o Gadwaldistrict Manopadvillageand 'nunouiJog'iumba
...PETITIONER/DEFENDANT
AND
...RESPONDENTSIPLAINTIFFS
Counselfor the Petitioner(s):SRl.SHAFATH AHMED KHAN
Counselfor the Respondents:R K CHITTA
The Courtmade the following:ORDER
THE HONOURABLESMT. WSTICEK. SIJJANA
crVIL F'EVISIONPEtITIOI{ No'3252 of 2Ol8
ORAL ORDER:
Challen;iing theorder datedO9'02'201 8pas:-;edin I.A.No.73 of2.117in O.S.No.113 of 2016by the learnedSienior Civil Judgr:,G.rdwal,the present civil revisionpet:Ltioris I il:d'
is dismiss<:dz s, infructuous.
[5 11 5sr1uel,miscellaneouspetitionspending' Lf ary' shall
stand clos;ecl.
//TRUE COPY//
To,
N
I'S I
HIGH COURT
DATED:1610412025
ORDER
CRP.No.3252 ot 2018
._
-j-:::=
Ji'Hf: ;i
(,^
c)T lJ7,1! Irt]25 ,'
c +
--!ei:!l!t)
DISMISSING TH}) CRT, ,{S INFRUCTTJOTIS
a
Arf
u>
1 issue framed by the court
Should the civil revision petition challenging an interlocutory order proceed after the underlying suit was dismissed?
Mehaboob Pasha
Respondents/plaintiffs
K. Sujana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
