Anthargam Sanjeev , Anthargtami Devid v. The State Of Telangana

[ 2s83 ] (sHow cAusE NoTIGE BEFORE AOMtSStON)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF N4ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE :PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY CML REVISION PETITION NOr 379 OF 2021 Between:

1. G V Srinivasa Rao S/o G.Kondal Rao

2. Smt. G.Sudharani W/o G.V.Srinivasa Rao Petitioners/ Respondents/ Defendants AND Smt.P V Rajalakshmi Wo N.Syama Sundar Naidu, R/o D.No.19-14-11, Raghavendra Nagar, Kesavayanagunta, Tirupati Town, Chittoor District Respondent/ Petitioner/ Plaintiff WHEREAS the Petitioners above named through their Advocate Sri Sricharan Telaprolu presented this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated ln the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 31.12.2020 in I.A.No.273 of 2020 in O.S.No.456 of 2015 on the file of the court of XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar;

AND WHEREAS the High Court upon perusing the petition and memorandum of grounds filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sricharan Telaprolu Advocate for the Petitioners, directed issue of notice to the Respondent herein to show cause as to why this CIVIL REVISION PETITION should not be ad mitted;

You viz;

Smt.P V Rajalakshmi W/o N.Syama Sundar Naidu, R/o D.No,19-14-11, Raghavendra Nagar, Kesavayanagunta, Tirupati Town, Chittoor District are directed to show cause as to why in the circumstances set out in the petition and the memorandum of grounds filed therewith (copy enclosed) this CIVIL REVISION PETITION should not be admitted, IA NO: 1OF 2O21 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated ln the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S,No.456 of 2015 on the file of XIII Additional District ludge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, pending disposal of CRP No. 379 of 2027, on the file of the High Court. The Court made the following:

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the impugned order is bereft of reasons and the Court below has not considered the Order XI Rules 1& 2 of CPC and without considering the purport of the aforesaid provisions, the impugned order has been passed.

A reading of the impugned order goes to show that the impugned order is bereft of reasons.

Issue notice to the respondent, Personal service of notice is permitted.

List after four weeks.

Meanwhile, there shall be interim stay, as prayed for. '-'-----' \[ iA su7- k. oNEitt'l ASSISTAN'I'IIE (;I S1'ItAI{ ., , _1 //TRUI COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar Smt.P V Rajalakshmi Wo N.Syama Sundar Naidu, R/o D.No.19-14-11, Raghavendra Nagar, Kesavaya nag u nta, Tirupati Town, Chittoor District (by RPAD- along with a copy of petition and memorandum of grounds) One CC to Sri Sricharan Telaprolu Advocate [OPUC] One spare copy

i: clAL c .-.\ / tv,lABrnri o * HIGH COURT t)pSPAI at\6O ARR] DATED: L2/03 /2O2L LIST AFTER FOUF: WEEKS NOTICE BEFORE ADMISSION CRP.No.379 of 1t-O2L INTERIM STAY