✦ Telangana High Court

Cute, Nizampet Road, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District' v. 21, Nizampet ViIIage, Quthbullapur

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

Accordingly, lhe Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infru< tuous

Key paragraphs

  • Para 44. Accordingly, lhe Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infru< tuous No ordcr as tc (losts. As a scquel, nr; scellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUECOPY/ / sd/- N. sR ASSISTANT REGIS IHARI TRAR \ SECIION OFFICER l To,

Judgment

#2. S. Srisailam Yadav, S/o. Late S.Yelliiah, Age 32 Occ Business, R/o.202, Vertex . Cute, Nizampet Road, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District' ... Petitioners/ APPellanLs AND l. S.Kumar Yadav, S/o. Sanigala liiaiah Yadav, Age 35 yeats, Occ Agriculture' R/o. 1-120/C/2, Venkatarlmana Nagar, Near Sri Chaitanya College, Narayana Reddy Colony, Nizampet, R.R Diskict. 2. S.BabL Yad.ai,S/o. S. Balaraj Yadav, Age 42 years, Occ Business, R/o' H No l- 21, Nizampet ViIIage, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy Djstric!'^ ...Respondents/ ResPondents. IA NO: LOF 2019 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 May be pleased to grant interim suspension of order and Decree dt.09-08-2018 in cMA No. ZO of 2017 passed by the XVI Additional District aird Sessions Judge at Malkajgiri confirming the order and Decree dt.28-o4-2017 in IA No. 870 of 20L6 in OS N;.185 of 21 16 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Medchal pending disposal of the CRP. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri C.M.R.Velu. Counsel for the Respondents: -- The Court made the following: ORDER ' '5 . r' ,., ,'r'/./'. THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.546 of 2019 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners appellants aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.08.2018 passed in C.M.A.No.7(1 of 2017 by the leamed XVI Adrljtional District & Sessions Judge at Malkajgiri.

#2. Lcarnod counsel for the petitioners reported that the cause of action would noL survive anr.l thc petition would become infructuous.

#3. Recording tht: submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is considered fit to disrniss the petition as infructuous.

#4. Accordingly, lhe Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infru< tuous No ordcr as tc (losts. As a scquel, nr; scellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUECOPY/ / sd/- N. sR ASSISTANT REGIS IHARI TRAR \ SECIION OFFICER l To,

#1. The XVI Adc'litional District & Sessions Judge at Malkajgiri 2. The I'rincipal Junior Civil Judge, Medchal. 3. One CC to Sri fl Nl.R.Velu, Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD Copies. ]cK/gh w IJIGH COURT DATED:I7/02/2025 ORDER CRP.No.546 of 2019 oR ltrc i,;14 o 15 APt, 2w s( P C- i t)E spatt :uEo .a+ a Dismissing the C.il.l']. as infructuous without costs. 5 le4

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, lhe Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infru< tuous

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India; 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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Telangana High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. PETITION No. 546 of 2019). ← Search more judgments