Civil revision petition against a Wakf Tribunal decree; counsel for the revision petitioner submitted the cause no longer survived for adjudication. The High Court dismissed the revision petition as infructuous and closed miscellaneous applications, with no order as to costs.
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.
13217 |
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5273 OF 2010
Petition under Section 83 Sub-section 9 of Wakf r/w'1 15 of CPC against the Order dated 24-03-2003 Passed in OS.No.139 of 2001 on thefile ofthe courtof the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad.
Between:
The Mandal Revenue Officer, Khairatabad, Hyderabad Office at Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
...Petitioner/Defendant No.7
AND
... ResPondents/Plai ntiffs
...Respondents/Defendants No'1to 6
't
I.A. NO: 'l OF 1pls(q RPMP. NO: 7012 OF 2010
Petition r-rnde' Section'151 cpc praying that in the circums :ances stated rn the affidavit fileci in s trpport of the petition, the High court rnay be plssss6 suspend the operation arrd r:fect of the decree and judgment dated 24 03.2003 in os No.139/ of 2001 on the file of the Ap Wakf Tribunai, Hyderabad.
Counsel for the Fetitioner : Mr. Anand Reddy Malchety, rep. Ass stant Govt Pleader for Arh itratation
Counsel for th,a Respondents No.1 : Sri DR.Sofia Begum
(SC for TS Wakf Board)
Counsel for thr: ResFrondent No.2 : Sri M A K Mukheed
Counsel for thr: Resp,ondent No.3 : Sri Mohd Shujauddin
Counsel for tho Respondent No.4 : Sri Syed Ashfaq Ahmed
Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : Sri K Jamali
The Court made the following: ORDER
w
THE HONOUR,ABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5273 OF 2010
ORDER:
Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. Anand Reddy Malchety, learned counsel, representing learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the revision petitioner, submits the cause in the present civil revision petition does not survive for further adjudication; therefore, the matter has become infructuous.
Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any,stands closed
Sd/- A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSI T NT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
\
CTION OFFICER
To,
ADK/gh
w
I I i I I I I I
I I
; I l
HIGH COURT
DATED:3f 101,t2025
ORDER
CRP.No.S273,of 2010
yL .,t/l rC
Ltt
(
c
1n'li
a I
co 02 Ei
t
Di pr- l.\
-.:
DISMISSING TFIE CRP AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSiTS
\
,{
\
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Mandal Revenue Officer, Khairatabad, Hyderabad
A.P. State Wakf Board
M/s. Aditya Arts
Ameer Khan
Abdul Hai Zikrullah
Saleem Khan
N.Tukaramji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
