Disposed

R.Yamuna v. The State of Telangana another

Telangana HC9 Jul 2025WP/25124/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought one year's time to repay a housing society loan and to set aside an auction notice. The court noted no representation for the petitioner and that respondent No.2 reported the demanded amount was already paid, so it closed the writ petition as infructuous without costs.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition closed as infructuous, no order as to costs.

R.Yamuna Vs The State of Telangana another — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^321e]

¶2

HIGH cquRr'?T ITED:IAIii: .11:-"^-^ tsPecii^{oii ginil Jurisdiction)}

¶3

WEDNESDAY,^{THE NINTHDAY OF-JULY} 'i;ii-r"H"ou-dAND AND rwENrY^FlvE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICET'MADHAViDEVI}

¶6

WRIT^{PETITIONNO:2 5124 oF2019}

¶7

Between:

¶8

irl:85ffi^{#"-,t3?:i}ffiS"?:o}

¶9

ut 42 Years' Occ ;^{Street Vendor' R/o H'No 6-23-}

¶10

.....PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

,^{TelanganaHousing}

¶13

1 u:,.J*?gl3'3!fl^{SI?"T3P;,?J"t'yfe1''ffi3'r:"'"#:} Society^Federation

¶14

2 m:?",'r',,Yr*,tJ:1[li,'ffi^{;,-;3.?o-operativeHousins}

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition^{UnderArticle 226 of the Constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith'the High Court maybe} pleased^{to issue a writ' order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of} WRIT^{OF MANDAMUS declaringthe notice dated 10-10-2019 issuedbythe 2nd} respondent^{in respect of auction of the petitioners house bearingH No'6-23-293} situated^{at GouthamNagar' Nizamabad' withoutgranting time as requestedas} illegal,^{arbitrary'unconstitutional' againstthe principlesof naturallusticeand} consequently^{set aside the noticedated 10-10-2019 issued by the 2nd} respondent^{directingthe 2nd respondentto grant one year timeperiod for} payment of^{loan in respect of petitioners house bearingH No 6-23-293 situated at} Goutham^{Nagar, Nizamabad'}

¶17

l.A.NO:1 OF 2019

¶18

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 direct the 2nd respondent to grant one year time period for payment of roan in respect of petitioners house bearing H.No. 6-23-2g3 situated at Goutham Nagar, Nizamabad, pursuant to representation dated 23_10_201g by suspending the notice dated 10-10-2019 issued by the 2nd Respondent pending disposar of the above writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI N.SRUSHMAN REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents : SRt MADHUSUDHAN REDDY PASUNOOR The Court made the following ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE^{SMT. JUSTICET'MADIIAVT DEVI} 4 of2019 WRTT^PETIT ION No.2512

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Writ^{Petition is filed seeking a direction to respondentNo'2 to} grant one^{year time period to the petitionerfor paymentof loanin respect} of her^{housebearingH No'6-23-293situatedat GouthamNagar'} Nizamabad.

¶24

There^{is no representation on behalf of the petitioner'}

¶25

Leamed^{counseltbr respondent No'2submitted that the demanded} amount^{has alreadybeen paid by the petitioner hereinand therefore'the} cause^{in this Writ Petitiondoes not survive for adjudicationand that it} has become^infructuous'

¶26

4 Accordingly,^{the Writ Petition is closed as infructuous' No order} as to costs.

¶27

Miscellaneous^{applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition,}

¶28

I I i I

¶29

shall stand^closed'

¶30

Sd/- K.BHAVAN^ISWAMY SISTANT^RE GISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFTCER To PU 12. 3:: 33 I^{3El U,i5H35,HT^t'3PJ6+i'iStii'} ooR,?dro..t" toPUCl 3. Two^{CD CoPies}

¶31

SA PVL \qT

¶32

I I

¶33

l i I I ) I I I I I I l : i I i I I i : I' l :

¶34

HIGH COURT

¶35

DATED:09 tO7t2O2S

¶36

. , .1.: ':,4>-'.., , ,-.)-
-i^'.il\
I -., : .j ,l
02 sEP A6
-:..il
,-.! .,,'
--o,,..-,,-,.,-. * ,,,).
-:i l..=:'i- - - i

ORDER

WP.No.2S124 of 2O1g

CLOSING THE W.P

AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS.

¶41

6*#"4

¶42

fti"'

R.Yamuna v. The State of Telangana another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Yamuna v. The State of Telangana another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sompaka Venkateshwarlu Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Ghouse Vs The State of Telangana And 2 Others

Sri. G.Mallesham Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Rathod Charulatha Vs The State of Telangana, And 4 Others

G.Latha Vs The State of Telangana and Other

Smt. Manupati Rama Vs The State of Telangana