Sridevamma v. (All are
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 26 Oct 2004
- Bench
- L NARASIMHA REDDY
Provisions considered
Judgment
Between: Sridevamma.
Kardhal Shivaraj, S/o.Shamanna 2. Kanikya Balraj,S/o. Balakistaiah 3. Segu Shaker, S/o. Linganna 4. Amrudha Raju, S/o. Mallaiah 5. Amrudha Narayana,S/o. Mallaiah 6. Muchati Nagesh,S/o. Monaiah Petitioner AND (All are R/o. Kosgi Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District) Respondents The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and the order of the High Court dated 22-09-2004 and made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. Mahipathi Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Y. Ashok Raj, Advocate for the Respondents, the Court made the following ORDER: “Post on 26-10-2004. The interim stay granted by this Court on 22-9-2004 is extended by three more weeks.” ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To
1. The Senior Civil Judge, at Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District.
Kardhal Shivaraj, S/o.Shamanna 3. Kanikya Balraj,S/o. Balakistaiah 4. Segu Shaker, S/o. Linganna 5. Amrudha Raju, S/o. Mallaiah
Amrudha Narayana,S/o. Mallaiah 7. Muchati Nagesh,S/o. Monaiah (All are R/o. Kosgi Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District)
One Spare Copy BV HIGH COURT RGJ DT. 16-8-2004 NOTE: POST AFTER TWO WEEKS FOR ADMISSION ORDER C.R.P.NO.4108 OF 2004 INTERIM STAY Drafted by: KK Drafted on: 24-8-2004 HIGH COURT RGJ DT. 16-8-2004 NOTE: POST AFTER TWO WEEKS FOR ADMISSION ORDER C.R.P.NO.4108 OF 2004 INTERIM STAY Drafted by: KK Drafted on; 20-12-2003 HIGH COURT TCSRJ DT. 16-12-2003 NOTE: POST ON 22-12-2003 ORDER C.R.P.NO. 5557 OF 2003 EXTENDING INTERIM ORDER
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 115.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 26 Oct 2004. The bench was L NARASIMHA REDDY.
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.