Vajrapu Koteshwar Rao v. Vajrapu Satyanarayana
Case at a glance
- Bench
- VLLL
Outcome
Dismissed
Petitions are dismissed as infructuous
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1 810812025 a= \ :h 7; "iili,i126 J> i) -a !, ')'-k .\ COMMON ORDER CRP.No.21 And 23 OF 2022 BOTH THE CIVIL REVISIONS ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS €
Judgment
... Petitioner/Plaintiff AND Vajrapu Satyanarayana, S/o. China Narasaiah, aged 58 years, Occ Chartered Accountant R/o. Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District. H.No 19-1l43, Reddy Colony. ... RespondenUDefendant lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.16 of 2015, on the file of Vlll Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda. CRP.No.23 ol 2022 Petition under Nlicle 227 of Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order Dated 26.11.2021 passed in 1.A.No.487 of 2021 in O.S.16 ot 2015 on the file of the Vlll Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda. Between: Vajrapu Koteshwar Rao, S/o.China Narasaiah, aged 54 years, Occ. Advocate, R/o. Rajahmundry Town, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh State. AND ..Petitioner/Plaintiff Vajrapu Satyanarayana, S/o. China Narasaiah, aged 58'ears, Occ. Chartered Accountant, R/o. Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonc: District. H.No.'19- 1/43, Reddy Colony. ...Re r pondenUDefendant lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.16 ol 2015, on the le of Vlll Additionat District Judge, Miryalaguda. Counsel for the Petitioners in both CRP's: SRI P.PRABHAI( \R REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: -- The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER (t1 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO C.R.P.Nos.21 and 23 OF 2o22 COMMON OR"DER: Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that CRP has become infructuous as O.S.No.16 of 2015 is disposed of on
04.o2.2022.
Operative part
In view of the above submission, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/-A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The Vlll Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda. 2. One CC to Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate [OpUC]
Two CD Copies NVB/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1 810812025 a= \ :h 7; "iili,i126 J> i) -a !, ')'-k .\ COMMON ORDER CRP.No.21 And 23 OF 2022 BOTH THE CIVIL REVISIONS ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS €
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petitions are dismissed as infructuous
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.