M/s Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. Vs Sri.B. Sravan Kumar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO, 689 OF 2018

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 19- 12-2017 by allowing the l A N0 1813/2017 in OS No.736/2015 on the file of lX th Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad and thereby dismissing the suit by allowing the CRP.

¶7

Between

¶8

It//s Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd, Having its office at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad Rep. by its Authorized Legal Manager

¶9

Revision Petitioner/Defendant No. 3

¶10

AND

¶11

SRl.B.Sravan Kumar, S/o Late B.Kondaiah Aged about.60 years, OccRetired covernment Employee, R/o H.No.6-3-172, Ptem Nagar, Hyderabad

¶12

V.Balraj, S/o Sri. A.Veerayya Aged about 34 years, OccBusiness, R/o 4-12-81 (new) 4-12-4515 (old), Dwarakamai Nagar, Near Saibaba Temple,

¶13

' Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad.

¶14

Mulugu Bhaskar, S/o Mulugu Mallikarjuna Aged about 39^years, OccBusiness, R/o H.No.12-21, Road No.1, SRT Puram, Hyderabad.

¶15

... Respondents/Defendants

¶16

tA NO. 1 0F 2018

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay of all further proceedings in OS No. 736 of 2015 on the file of lX th^Addl. Chief Judge City Civil Court at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above CRP in the interest of^justice and circumstances of the case.

¶18

/

¶19

Counsel for the Petitione(s):SRl. P Ramachandran Counsel for the Respondents. Rajashekar Thallapally The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

____=?7

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶22

CML REVISION PETITION No.689 of 2018

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Today u,hen the matter has come up before this Court lor hearing, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the cause in this Civil Revision Petition does not survive for further adj udication and the Civil Revision Petition has become infructuous.

¶25