✦ Telangana High Court

Dheekollu Ashok Kumar v. Dheekollu Saroja @ Nukathoti Saroja, Wo. Dheekollu Ashok Kumar, Aged

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 33. Two CD Copies w HIGH COURT u ATED:1911212025 f / , '* ( CRP.No.3755 of 2025 () 2 C JAN 2O2E * i ! I CIVIL REVISION PEITITION IS DISPOSED OF. wJ-rs r"l,/on

Judgment

Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COI'RT T1OR THE STATE OF TEI,AIVGANA AT IIYDERABAD ** THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BIIATTACHARYA DATED: 19.12.2O2S Between Dheekollu Ashok Kumar Dheekollu Saroja Versus Petitioner ...Respondent Ms' Talat Madiha, rearned counsel representing Mr. Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. ORDER: 1' The sore prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the Principal Family court, Ranga Reddy Diskict at L.B. Nagar (Trial CourtJ, to dispose of F.C.O.P.No.T4T of 2O2S expeditiously. \

#2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the F.c.o.p. before the Senior civil Judge, Avanigadda, Krishna District, Andhra pradesh. counsel also submits that pursuant to the order dated 04.03.2025 I I \ \ 2 r^ passed by tl.e Supreme court in Transfer Petition (civiu No.3310 of 2o24,the F.c.o.P. has been transferred to the, Trial court. counsel further submits that although 9 months have elapsed since the matter was transfer, the Trial Court has not ,] taken any steps to dispose of the F'C'O'P'

#3. The Daily Status Report of the Trial court does not show any adjournment of the matter by the Trial Court after o4.og.2o25 i.e.,,after the matter was transferred. However, the Daily status Report shows the hearing date of 1L.o9.2O25 making the matter returnable on L6.LO-2O25 for t'[otice'' Hence, this Court does not wish to pass any orders or issue directions to the Trial Court in the absence of evidence that the Trial Court is delaying the hearing of the matter'

#4. C.R.P. No.3755 of 2025, along wit}r all 'connected applications, is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh Civil Revision Petition upon presenting the evidence of delay on the part of the Trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. sdr- N. CHAT{DRA SEKHAR DEPUTY ,,TRUE COPY'/ N OFFICER To, I

#1. The Principal Family Court. Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar 2. One CC to Sri. Narasiinha Rao Gudiseva, Advocate [OPUCJ

#3. Two CD Copies w HIGH COURT u ATED:1911212025 f / , '* ( CRP.No.3755 of 2025 () 2 C JAN 2O2E * i ! I CIVIL REVISION PEITITION IS DISPOSED OF. wJ-rs r"l,/on

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. C.O.P No. 747 of 2025). ← Search more judgments