Dismissed¶61

K. Yadamma v. M.Ramulamma

Telangana HC6 Feb 2026CRP/93/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court, C.R.P. No. 93 of 2022, decided 06.02.2026 by Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy. Revision under Article 227 challenging order dated 22.11.2021 in I.A.No.262 of 2016 in O.S.No.43 of 2013 (XII Additional District Judge, Vikarabad) dismissed as infructuous because the suit itself was disposed of by judgment and decree dated 25.04.2025; cause no longer survived; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed; interim stay dated 11.02.2022 in the CRP (sought to be vacated in I.A.No.2 of 2022 under Section 151 CPC); no precedent discussed.

What did the court decide?

In view of the disposal of O.S.No.43 of 2013 by judgment and decree dated 25.04.2025, the cause in the present civil revision petition no longer survives for further adjudication. ¶44

K. Yadamma Vs M.Ramulamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

-l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 93 OF 2022

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order Daled 22.11.2021 in lA. No. 262 ot 2016 in OS. No 43 of 2013 on the ftle of Xll Additional District Judge, Vikarabad

¶8

Between:

¶9

K. YADAMMA, Wo Ashok, Age. 30 years, Occ-Household, R/o.Naikwadi, Pargi, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

.....APPELLANT/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT

¶11

AND

¶12

lril Ramulamma, w/o.Kistaiah, Age.50 years, Occ-Household, r/o.Bestagally,^Pargi, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶15

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 suspend the operation of the order in 1.A.262 of 2016 in OS No./143 of²⁰¹³ dated 22.11.2021 of the Xll Additional District Judge, Vikarabad trll the disposal of this revision and to grant such other relief or relrefs as thrs Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case

¶16

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶17

Between

¶18

M.Ramulamma, w/o.Kistaiah, Age.50 years, Occ.Household, r/o Bestagally, Pargi, Ranga Reddy District.

¶19

.... PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT

¶20

AND

¶21

K. YADAMMA, Wo Ashok, Age. 30 years, Occ.Household,^{R/o.Narkwadi,Pargi,} Ranga Reddy District.

¶22

..... RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶23

Petition under Seclion 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be^pleasedto vacate the interim stay order Dt.11-02-2022 passed in C R P No. 93 of 2022 conseq uently dismiss the same

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CHALAKANI VENKAT YADAV

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent: K LAKSHMI MANOHAR

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶28

THB HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

C.R.P.No.93 of 2022

Date:06. 02.2026

Between:

K. Yadanrnra

. .. Petitioner

AND

IVI. Ranrularn rna

...Responden t

ORDER

Ihis Civil Revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 22.il.202 I passed in t.A.No.262 of 20l6in O.S.No.43 of 2013 on the t'ile of' learnt.d Xll_Additional District Judge, Vikarabad.

¶39

Heard Sri Chalakani Venkat yadav, leamed counsel for the pctitioner. l'here is no representation on behalfofthe respondent.

¶40

-i. Whcn the rnarter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice ol'the Courr thar rhe suit in O.S.No.43 of 2013 on the file of lcarne'd XIl-Additional District Judge, Vikarabad has already been d i slrosed o l' r,idc .j ud grn enr and decree dated, 25.04.2025.

¶41

¶42

¶43