Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-29 v. All concerned
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accor<Lngly, the Gvil Revision petition is allowed by
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. IX r. 9
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Britania lndustries Limited., Office at G-402,4th Floor, Block No.C, '1-10-74, Galada Towers, Chikoti Gardens Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016. 3- All concerned ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. Pavitra, representing Ms. G. Veena Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri Ram Milan Vishwakarma Counsel for the Respondent No.2…
Judgment
1. Devi Naraindas Ramnani, W/o.Late Sri. Narayandas Ramnani, Age: 68 Years, Occ: Hous€ Hold, No.5-9-3011/414, Palace Colony, Road No.5, Basheerbagh, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-29.
2. Rajesh Ramnani, S/o.Late Sri. Narayandas Ramnani, Age: 47 years, Occ: Business, No.5-9-30111414, Palace Colony, Road No.5, Basheerbagh, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-29
3. Monika Ramnani, D/o- Late Sri. Narayandas Ramnani, Age: 44 Years, Occ: Business, trJo.5-9-30111414, Palace Colony, Road No.5, Basheerbagh, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-29
4. Yijay Ramnani, S/o.Late Sri. Narayandas Ramnani, Age: 41 Years, Occ: Business, Rlo.5-9-30111414, Palace Colony, Road No.5, Basheerbagh, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-29 ..Petitioners AND
Karvy Fintech Private Limited, Office at Karvy Selenium Tower-B, Plot No.3'l -32, Gachibowli, Financial District Hyderabad-500032 Represented by its corporate registry
Britania lndustries Limited., Office at G-402,4th Floor, Block No.C, '1-10-74, Galada Towers, Chikoti Gardens Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016. 3- All concerned ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. Pavitra, representing Ms. G. Veena Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri Ram Milan Vishwakarma Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLII SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMI.II SHAVILI C.R.P. 048 of2024 ORDER (Ptr I lor'bt: Sn lutice.'lbbiund kmar Shauili) Aggrie ved by the order dated 27.11.2004 passed ln I.ANo.810 cl 2oz+ in S.O.P.No.44 of 2021 by the I Senior Gvil Judge, Gty Gvil Courr, Hyderabad, the present civil revision petition has been filed. Heard N&. Pavitra, leamed counsel, representing lMs.G.Veena, lear:ned counsel appearing for t1,3 petitioners and Sri Ran-L Milan Vishwakarma, learned couns, el appearing for the responden[s. It is tee case of the petitioners that they have filed S.O.P.No.44 of 2021on the file of I Senior Ci.ril Judge, Gry Gvil C-ourt, Hylerabad, for grant of successirr.n certificate.
But the said SOP was dismissed for default on 02.09.2022. Aggrieved b-gthe same, the petitioners have file, clI.ANo.810 of 2024 under Order IX Rule 9 read with Secrion 151 CPC 2 - for restoring the said S.O.P. wrth a delay of 579 dap. lWithout appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners, the trial Crurt dismissed the sarrre uide order dated 27 .11.2024. Lknce, the present revision. Leamed cor.rnsel appearing for the petitioners had contended that the respondents have also expressed no objection for restoring the said S.O.P. \Y,,4ren the respondents have expressed no objection for condoning the delay, the trial Court ought to have condoned the delay in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC and restored the said S.O.P. to its file, so as to enable the trial Court to pass appropriate orders on mer-its. Therefore, appropriate orden be passed in the revision by sefting aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court.
Operative part
Leamed cor.rnsel appearing for the respondents had contended that he has no objection for condoning the delay and also for restoring the S.O.P. 3 Flaving considered the rival submissioru made by the Ieamed coursel on either side, this Court is of the view that the trial Court ought to have condoned the delay.ef 579 da-p in filing the t.A and restored the said S.O.p to :ts file. Accor<Lngly, the Gvil Revision petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 27.11.2024 passed in I.ANo.S10 of 2024 in S.O.P.No.44 of 2021 and "consequently, I.A.No.S10 of 2024 is allowr:d. The trial Court is directed to hear I.A (SR) No.512() of 2024 in S.O.P.No.44 of 2021 on its own meritsr and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with lauy'r. No costs. Miscell, rneous petitions, { any, pending shall stand closed. SD/. N SRI HARI DEF,Ury REGISTRAR Note: This order is Am:nded as per court order Dated 1 1-04-2025 in l.A.No.i of 2O2S Crp No.
4048 of 2024. "S.O.P.No.44 of 2021 s restored to its file. The Trial Court is directed kr hear LA.No.810 of 2024 On its own merits and 6rass appropriate orders.,, mentioned in the operative portion of the order dated 28.02.2025",passed by this Hon'bte Court order dated 28.02.2025 in CRp.No.404B of 2024 is modified as "consequenfly, l.A.No.g10 of 2024 is allowed. The trial CorIrt is directed to hear l.A. (SR) .No.5120 of 2024 n S.O.p.No.44 of 2021 on Its own merits and pass appropriate orders, in Accordance with law". This order substitutes the earlier order which was Dispatched on 28-03-2()25 SD/. N SRI HARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. 2. One CC to tt/ls. G. Veena, Advocate IOPUC]
One CC to Sri Ram l\/ilan Vishwakarma, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies A\. '\ (r-\ kam/P S L HIGH COURT DATED:2810212025 11t0412025 AMENDED ORDER CRP.No.4048 of 2024 z //*' / :r" I 'r t'.'?'. '\ i' \ -r HE SIA ,€ l a :l 0 APH 2fi25 t: p -:.' \:..:'. ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION q f\- 6 ,'4, )l
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accor<Lngly, the Gvil Revision petition is allowed by
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. IX r. 9.
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.