✦ Telangana High Court

Peddachelka Thanda, Chinarevalli, Balanagar v. Kammari Bhagyamma, Wo Shankaraiah

SENIOR CIVIL3 min read

Case at a glance

Bench
SENIOR CIVIL

Outcome

Dismissed

In view of the above, the Civit Revision Petition is dismissed

Provisions considered

Judgment

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1856 OF 2019 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitutron of lndia, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to aggrieved by the Order dated O5/O7 t2O19 passed in tA. No. 59 of 2016 in O.S. No.63 of 2014 on the frte of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, the above named Petitroners beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition. Between 1 Patlavat Bhasker, S/o Dhakya, aged about 25 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Peddachelka Thanda, Chinarevalli, Balanagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

2. Jalavat Shanker, S/o Hunya, aged about 38 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Peddachelka Thanda, Chinarevalli, Balanagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar Diskict

3. Patlavat Bujjya Naik, S/o B Dhakya Naik, aged about 38 years, Occ- Cultivation, R/o Peddachelka Thanda, Chinarevalli, Balanagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

4.' K. Sreenivasa Chary, S/o Ramachandraiah Chary, aged about 38 years, Occ- Business, R/o Peddachelka Thanda, Chinarevalli, Balanagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. .Petitioners/3RD Parties AND

1.

Kammari Bhagyamma, Wo Shankaraiah, aged about 48 years, Occ- Agriculture, Rl/o Dooskal Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

2.

Kammari Jayamma, Wo Janardhan, aged about 42 yea.s, Occ- Agriculture, R/o Kothur Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

3.

Kammari Swaroopa, D/o Late Vadla Narsimulu, aged about 40 years, Occ- Agriculture, Rl/o Lingareddyguda, H/o Chetapally Village, Faroognagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District Now residing at H.No.8-3-230/1/fu1, Police Line, Near Venkatagiri, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.

4.

Vadla Narsimulu (died), Mahaboobnagar

5.

Vadla Jyothi, W/o Nagabhushanam, aged about 37 yerr s, Occ- Agriculture, R/o Krshannagar Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Mahablrl nagar Distrrct, Now -Mahaboobnagar residing at Lingareddyguda Village of Faroognagar Marrr al. Distflct.

6.

Smt. Vadla lvlanemma (dred), Mahaboobnagar 7. Challa Venkateshwar Reddy, W/o Late Laxma Reddy I ed about 45 years, 9cc- . Agriculture, R/o Lrngareddyguda Viltage of- F; -ooqnagar M6ndal, Mahabubnagar District. Def,_. rdants/Res pondents tA NO 1 0F 2019 Petitron under Section '151 cpc praying that in the ( i cumstances stated in the .affidavit filed in support of the petition, tne nign court may be preased to grant leave to the Petitioners herein to file a Revision agar st the order dated 0510712019 passed in l.A.No 59 of 2016 in oS No.63 of zol t n the fite of senioi Civil Judge, Shadnagar, pending disposal of the above Rr_,.ision petition, and IANO: 2OF2019 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the.i cumstances stated in the affrdavit fired in support of the peiition, tne Hign court may oe pteaseJio grant stay of execution of the final decree in puriuance >f the oider dated 0510712019 passed in r.A. No. 59 of 2016 in o.s. No. 63 cf 2014 on the frre oi Senior civil Judge, Shadnagar, pending disposar of the above Revision "no fass Counsel for the Petitione(s): Mr G.Vinay representing SRI M l.S Srinivas Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following. ORDER ']HE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISIO N PETITION NO.1E56 Of2OL9 ORDER: On 76.O9.2025, i*lr. G. l/inav, learned counsel !-cpresenting Mr.M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsci it, the revision petitioners reported that despite having informed the petitioners, no instmctions have been received either from the clients or from the learned counsel appearing for them before the trial Court. Hence, the matter was listed to today under the caption "for dismissa.l".

Operative part

2. Today, rvhen the matter vras called, the learned counsel reiterated that he has no instructions from the petitioners. It appears that the revision petitioners a-re not interested in prosecuting the matter. In view of the above, the Civit Revision Petition is dismissed as Non-Prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellareous peLitions, if any are pending, shall stand dismissed . SD/.I'/I.NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// " c TION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar' (with records if any) 2. One CC to SRI M R'S Srinivas' Advocate [OPUCI Two CD CoPies 'ltfl"": HIGH COURT DAIED.22t09t2023 ORDER CRP No.1856 of 2019 t .ii i lr: "r;. rt ,i. ,I 7'1?q * \.\ a.)-t * CTVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED AS NON-PROSECUT ( IN. &b \b \

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, the Civit Revision Petition is dismissed

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.

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 more judgments