Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
the appellant, this Second Appeal is dismissed as infructuous
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE }IONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL Appeal under sect'lon 100 of C.P-.,C lgainst the. Judgment and Ptg*" Dated 1o-02-201s madJin- A.5 No.77 ot zot2-on the file oi the cou.rt. of the XXV Additionat Chief lrdsi",'biiy'Cirir CJurt Hyderapad prgJerr-e{ 999inst the J.udgrnent and Decre" p"rr"ifi'o:5 M.itzg ot ioog dated 27-12-2011 on the file of the C"rrt of-iG f,iiJuniorCivil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between: sri mahesh.kumar kanodia, S/o. Sri Ramavtar H.Kanodia R/o' 4-5403/3' Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. ...Appe I la nUDefe ndanUAppel lant AND Yitx,"jia?giifii1lBt"J,"5fil, iff 8ll;["f 5i.,'"",^3',1H[::.,:',ii?9,i[!o ... RespondenURespondenUPlai ntifr 1 I petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fi|gJ in'support of the petiiion, the High Court may be pleased to stay of execution of the d""re" dated 27-12-2011 passed in os. No.1129 of 2009 on the file of llr .lunioi Civit .luOge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad as confirmed by the decree dated, '1O-Oi-ZOIS p""LO in AS.No.77 of 2012 on the fi1g of the XXV Additional Chief J,rdG;City Civil Court Hyderabad pending disposalof the second appeal in the interest of iustice' Counsel for the Appellanb :SRl SHYAM S AGRAWAL Counsel for the Respondenfi SRI MAHESH RAJE The Couft delivered the following: Judgment TIIE HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE E.V.VENUGOPAL SDCOND No.l OF 2016 JUDGMF}NT: Sri Shyam S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the cause in the Second Appeal does not survive for consideration and seeks to dismiss the Second Appeal as infructuous. He also submits that he has informed the same to the learned counsel for the respondent.
Operative part
2. Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, this Second Appeal is dismissed as infructuous.
3. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed. SD'. V.KAVITHA REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY/ OFFICER To,
The XX\/ Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad 2. The lll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRI SHYAM S AGRAWAL, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRt MAHESH RAJE, Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Oopies ADK/PSL w I { t HIGH COURT I ATED:08/0912025 ( tltfrld-illilrfi SA.No.1 ,of 2016 S ,J (-) I I 0 2 rfq 2u0 i1 * DA.i DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AS I 3 F UC u a cdgeA ft*
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: the appellant, this Second Appeal is 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.