Executive Officer Of Sri Peddamma Temple, v. E.Padmaja,

[ 3se3l

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENry FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI L.P.A.No: 5 ol 2012 Letter Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the JudgmenUdecree passed in CC.No.1500 ot 2011, dated 13-04-2012, on the file of the High Court.

Between:

Sri Peddamma Temple, Endowments Department, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Rep. by Executive Officer.

...Petitioner/Appellant

AND

1. E.Padmaja, Wo. Sri E.Bhaskar Rao, aged about 45 years, Occ:Business, Rl/o. Hyderabad ..RespondenUPetitioner

2. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

3. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

4. The Jubilee Hills, Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Rep. by its Secretary, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

5. The Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Boggulakunta, Abids, Hyderabad.

(Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are not necessary party to this appeal)

...Respondents/Respondents

L

'

l.A. No: 2 oF 2012( LPAMP. NO: 20 OF 2012) 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 order dated 13-04-2012 made in Contempt Case No. 1500 of 2O11 in so far as it directs the demolition of arch constructed by the petitioner temple. Counsel for the Appellant: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: Mr. P.S. RAJASEKHAR Counsel forthe Respondents No.2 & 3: None Appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT I I I I I I j

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AIIII, I(U![AR JUKANTI L.P.A.No.5 of 2OL2 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradlrc) Mr. P.S.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2.

This appeal has been filed against an interim order dated 13.O4.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in C.C.No.15O0 of 2011.

3.

Learned counsel for respondent No.l submits that subsequently, the contempt petition itself has been decided on 22.O7.2073.

4.

In view of afores;aid submission, nothing survives for adjudication in this Letter Patent Appeal. The same is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs

w .a!

., Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

SD/. K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGIS RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION FFICER To,

1. lTwo CCs to GP FOR ENDOWMENTS, High Court for the State of Tetangana at Hyderabad.(OUT)

2. One CC to SRI P.S. RAJASEKHAR, Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CD Copies kam Y \ i I

HIGH COURT HCJ & JAK, J DATED:2411112023 T 'r€ '36 o S J o 2[8 g o , t DE9P Eg

JUDGMENT

' LPA.No.5 of 2012 THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS .\ 1b s