Mr. Venu Gopal Baldawa v. Mrs. Reddy Srinivas Reddy
[ 3258 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU clvlL REVISION PETITION NO:456 OF 2022 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, to allow present civil revision Petition thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 25th November, 2021 passed in lA No.234 of 2O19 in OS No.389 of 2015 by the learned Vlll Additional District Judge, RR District, At LB Nagar. Between:
1. Mr. Venu Gopal Baldawa, S/o Late Satyanarayana Baldawa aged about 55 years occp Business
2. Mrs. Manju Baldawa, W/o Mr. Venu Gopal Baldawa aged about 52 years occ Housewife Both Resident of H. No. 14-2-332-21A, Gyanbagh colony, Hyderabad ...PETITIONERS AND Mrs. Reddy Srinivas Reddy, s/o. late Ramreddy aged about 48 years occ Business R/o. Plot No. 16, Laxmi Vihar phase-ll, Nallangandla Village, Serilingampally Mandal, GHMC, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned orders dated 25th November,2O21 passed in lA No.234of 2019 in OS No.389 of 2015 by the learned Vlll Additional District Judge, RR District, At LB Nagar, pending disposal of the Revision in interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. AADESH VARMA Counsel for the Responde q?\ n[: V.S€UDHAKAR The Court made the following: ORDER
/ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASTVA RAO NAIDU CwIL REVISION PETITION No.456 OF 2o22 ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioners who are the defendants in O.S.No.389 of 2015 filed under Order XIV Rule 5 C.P.C. seeking a direction to the Court below for framing appropriate issues on the ground that the Court below did not consider the pleadings and no proper issues were framed. Having perused the order impugned in the present revision and having perused the record it is found that there is some force in the arguments advanced by the I counsel, because in spite of number of contentions raised by the petitioners in the written statement, formal issues have been framed without covering the entire contest of the petitioners herein 2.
Therefore, this is a fit case for remanding the matter to the trial Court for framing appropriate ISSLlCS Accordingly, this revision is disposed of.
CR?.No a56 of2022
3. In the result, this revision is disposed with a direction to the Court below for framing appropriate issues, keeping the pleadings in view and the a-rguments advanced while submitting earlier interlocutory application. Since the suit is 2015, the Court below shall complete the exercise of framing ol issues afresh and dispose of the matter within a period of 6 months from the date of receiving copy of this Order.
As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.
'DDY Sd/. P. PADMANABHA ASSISTANT REGI RAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Vlll Additional District Judge RR District at LB Nagar
2. One CC to SRl. AADESH VARMA, Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to SRl. V S SUDHAKAR, Advocate [OPUC]
4. Two CD CoPies pr DL q
HIGH COURT DATED:0310312023 HE ST;\}A o$ q ac L,o() 0 3 ilAY 2ff23
ORDER
-\, ,,i ',, CRP.No.456 ot 2022 t7'
DISPOSING OF THE CRP @tn-'
rO \A a3