Hyderabad v. Hyderabad
Case at a glance
- Bench
- M LAXMAN
Outcome
Withdrawn
appeal is dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
Judgment
4. Smt. Faheemunnisa, Wo.Md.Akbar Housewife Rl/o.1-2-499, Domalguda, Liberty, Hyderabad.
5. Siddique Begum, D/o.Late Abdul Razak Miya Pvt Employee Rl/o.18-6-116/9/2, Edibazat, Hyderabad.
6. Safia Begum, D/o. Late Abdul Razak Miya Pvt Employee Rlo.18-6-1161912, Edibazar, Hyderabad.
7. Ghousia Begum, D/o. Late Abdul Razak Miya Student R/o.18-6-1161912, Edibazar, Hyderabad.
8. Ayesha Unnisa, D/o. Late Abdul Razak Miya Student Rl/o.'18-6-1161912, Edibazar, Hyderabad.
9. Md.Viquar, S/o. Late Abdul Razak Miya Student R:/o.18-6-1 161912, Edibazar, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS AND
Abdul Gaffar @ Gaffar, S/o.Abdul Razak Miya, Occ: Business, R/o.18-8-16, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad.
Abdul Hafeez @ Abdul Maqdum Shariff, S/o.Abdul Razak Miya Mason FYo.18-&16, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad.
Abdul Majeed, (Since died, as per LRs, R-6 to 19 herein)
Abdul Ja6bar, S/o.late Abdul Razak Miya Govt Employee R/o.18-8-450/6'l , Ashoknagar, ldi Bazar, Hyderabad.
Shameem Sultana, Wo.Yousuf ,R/o.18-2-788, Kandikalgate, Uppuguda, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 1 to 5
Smt. Azghari Begum, W/o. Late Abdul Majeed, Aged about 45 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. H.No. 18-8-16, Edibazar, Hyderabad-23
Abdul lr,4aliC, employee. l/( :i/o Late Abdul lt/ajeed, Aged about 26 yeilrs, Crcc: )rivate ll No. 1B-B 16, Edi\azar, hyderabad-23 8 Abdul Javerec Si/o Late Abdul Majeed, Aged about 24 vea1; Oc Students, R/o. H.No 1€ 8.16, Edibazar Hyderabad-23 Application urde r ()rtJer 23 rule 1 & 3 riw Section 15-0 CpC prayirrg that in the circumstances s at )d in the accompanying affidavit, lhe Hill- C()urt may be pleased to perm t h€ Petitioners appellants herein to cermit t.e irppellants to withdraw the above a1;peal i.e, SA No. 108 ol ZO12 by recordi rq that the parties has entered into :t c )n)promise, rn the interest of justice. S.A No. 108 of 201:ti Second Appezl r nder section 100 of CpC against Judgment a,ld decree dated 27-10-2011 in AS; I o 198 of 2008 on the file of the court ot t.re lll Additional District Judge (FIC Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar reversirr I the Judgment and Decree datec 1 I t)7'20o8 in o.s. No. 241 of 1999 on the il(, of the court of the V Senior Civil Ju jqe, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the Ap; ellants: SRl. N. BHARAT BABU Counsel for the Res rondents: SRl. RESU MAHENDER REDDy Counsel for the Res rondents: SRl. Y. ASHOK RAJ The Court made the following: ORDER IL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LA>(MAN I.A.No. 1 of 2o22 In And S.A.No.1O8 of 2OL2 JUDGMENT: Both the learned counsels are present and submitted that this matter has been settled between the parties outside the Court.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that they have filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 to permit the appellalts to withdraw the above Second Appeal i.e., S.A.No. 108 of 2Ol2 stating that the parties have entered into an oral compromise.
Operative part
3. In the light of settlement between the parties outside the Court, I.A.No.l of 2022 is allowed. Consequently, the second appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SRINIVASA JOINT REGIS AR SECTION FICER To,
1. The V Additional Senior Civil Judge, (FTC), Ranga Reddy Districrt at L.B. Nagar.
2. One CC to SRl. Y. ASHOK RAJ, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. RESU MAHENDER REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. N BHARAT BABU, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies DL ?r'q, I I IIIGTI COLIRT I\{ L..r DATED:171101202',2 ORDER l.A No.1 OF 2022 IN/AND SA.No.108 of 20'12 S.A IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN ^c,, ,r"\ s\4' ! i, ': Q-, t.- r i! :r'l - ---hr{1t- *.'r//
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: appeal is dismissed as withdrawn
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 100.
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.