Jasvinderpal Singh Sarna , Mintu Sarna v. Hafsa Moosa
[ 3258 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO:41 OF 2o22 Appeal filed under the Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree daled 22-12-2021 passes in O.S.No. 61 of 2021 on the file of the court of the lV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Between:
Jasvinderpal Singh Sarna @ Mintu Sarna, S/o. Late Mangal Singh Sarna, Aged 48.years R/o.Mulgi No. 6-3-24611, Unit No. l,Ground Floor, Road No. 1, Banjara Hills,Hyderabad.
...APPELLANT/DEFENDANT AND Hafsa Moosa, Wo Late lvld. Moosa, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Landlady, R/o Plot no. 19, Kartik Enclave, Near Diamond Point Hotel, Sikh Road, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Order 41 Rule 5(2) R/w 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 pass an order to stay all further proceedings including execution of the decree dated 22-12-2021 in O.S.No. 61 of 2021 passed by in lV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, pending the disposal of the above appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI KISHORE RAI Counsel for the Respondent: SRI MAMIDI AVINASH REDDY The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU c.c.c.A.No.4t oF 2022 JUDGMENT:
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant who is the defendant in O'S'No'61 of 2O2l on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court' Hyderabad' challenging the Judgment ald decree in the above referred suit.
t 2.
Today when the matter is taken up for hearing learned counsel for the appellant informed this Court that the appellant while handing over the key of the premises is seeking permission to withdrawn the appeal'
3.
Learned counsel for the respondent raised ar objection on the ground that there is huge outstanding amount to be paid by the appellant' and even as per the orders of this Court it is more than one Crore' and if he is required tc raise invoice, he need to pay income tax' Therefore, he sought time for getting instructions from the client
CCCA No 1l of202l 4.
However, since the appellant is interested to withdraw the appeal, counsel is permitted to withdraw the appeal on depositing costs of the appeal.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn' As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed Sd/. M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUW REGISTRAR #{- //TRUE COPY// :ISECTION OFFICER To,
1. The lV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (with records)
2. One CC to Sri Kishore Rai, Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to Sri Mamidi Avinash Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
4. Two CD Copies Plp/gh CL{L
( t HIGH COURT DATED:2010312024
JUDGMENT
1HE ST4y- .lt ();
CCCA.No.41 of 2022 ll5 JUN 2l]A ,') o C) {, Se4 1r:ur'{1- ^+ DISMISSING THE APPEAL AS WITHDRAWN.
@,X'
("l,(ut{