Sri. Chittabhoina Vinod Yadav, Wo Late Sri Mahender Yadav & Anr. v. Smt. Saladri Bharathi Bai, Wo Late S.Balanarasimha Yadav, years
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
petitioners, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. Smt. M. Lavanya @ Vikshitha, Wo tvl. Yeshpal, aged 28 years, Occ. Household R/o H.No. 4-2-925, Ramkote, Hyderabad ( Responcents 2 to 9 are not necessary parties to the above petition.) ...Respondehts/Defendants 1& 3&5 TO I lA NO: 1OF 20',22 Petition tinder Section 151…
Judgment
Sri. Chittabhoina Vinod Yadav and another, Wo Late Sri Mahender Yadav aged about 38 years, Occ. Business R/o H.No. 3-2-733, Chappal Bazar, Kachiguda Hyderabad C. VivekYadav, S/o. Late Sri Mahenddr Yadav, aged about 34 years, Occ. Business R/o. H. No. 3-2-733,. ChappalBazar, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. AND ...Petitioners/Defendants 9 &1 0
Smt. Saladri Bharathi Bai, Wo Late S.Balanarasimha Yadav, years, Occ. Household R/o H.No. 1-6438, Ramnagar, Hyderabad. age. 61 years Zamistanpur,
Smt. Ravula Komaramma @ Kamalamma, Wo Late R. Balaiah Yadav, aged 64 years, Occ. Household. R/o. H. No. 22-1-587, Noorkhan Bazar, Hyderabad.
Smt. Gunti Sulochana, Wo G. Pochaiah aged 58 years, Occ. Household R/o. Q-2-4n n A0 I A, Mahaveer Nagar, Gud imalkapu r, Mehid ipatnam, Hyderabad.
Smt. Banda Lalitha Bai, Wo Late B.Ramulu, aged 58 years, Occ. Household R/o. H.No. 6-3-554, Premnagar, Khairatabad, Hyderabad-SO0 004
Smt. Chittaboina Balamani (Died), Hyderabad 6. Smt. C. Manjula @ G. Lavnya, Wo. G. Someshwar Yadav aged about 40 years Occ. H6usenotO R/o.H.No. 16-2-14912, Malakpet, Hyderabad 7 Qmt. S. \/anitha, Wo.S. Venkatesh Yadav aged 36 years R/o. H. lrlo. 16-1 1-10/N, Plot No. 95, Prashanth Nagar, Hyderabad. Occ. Household Moosarambagh,
Qrt. A. tlajini, Wo A. Rajeshwar Yadav, aged 34 years. Occ. House Hold R/o. H.No.6-3-663/3 Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
Smt. M. Lavanya @ Vikshitha, Wo tvl. Yeshpal, aged 28 years, Occ. Household R/o H.No. 4-2-925, Ramkote, Hyderabad ( Responcents 2 to 9 are not necessary parties to the above petition.) ...Respondehts/Defendants 1& 3&5 TO I lA NO: 1OF 20',22 Petition tinder 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 all further procr:edings in O.S.NO 1025 of 2014 on the file of the Hon'ble XXVth Addl Chief Jutlge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above C.R.P. in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRt. M.S.Chandresh Counselfor the Respondents: G Narender Raj The Court madr: the following: ORDER ,zl I t THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAIT RAO CI\ITL PETITION No.1 62 of 2or22 ORDER: Mr.S.Chandresh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the cause in this Civil Revision Petition does not survive in view of the fact that the suit in O.S.No.1025 of 201.4 on the file of learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is disposed of on 03.03.2023.
2. E-Courts status placed before this court shows that suit in O.S.No. lO25 of 2OL4 is disposed of on 03.03.2023. ln view of the sarne, the cause in the Civil Revision Petition does not survive.
Operative part
3. Recording the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs- 2 i': Interim orders and miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending :.n the civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. SD/- A JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To, P
1. The XX\r Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. (with records if any)
2. One CC to SRl. M.S. Chandresh, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. G.Narender Raj, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ,i I i ,l i, I I I I I I \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:1411012025 ORDER CRP.No.162 o1'2022 CryIL REVISIIfN PETITION IS DISMISSED AS I}iFRUCTUOUS \, /
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petitioners, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Telangana High Court, on 03 Mar 2023. The bench was XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF, R ADDITIONAL CHIEF.
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.