B.Arjun Reddy, v. Boda Sudhakar Reddy,

132171

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI APPEAL SUIT NO: 573 OF 2007 Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree daled 17.07.2007 passed in O.S.No 170 of 2003 on the file of the court of the V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Between:

B.Arjun Reddy, S/o.Late C.K.Reddy, Occ: Buslness R/o.H.No.3-5-576, Himavathnagar' Hyderabad ...AppEllANT/iutrurtrr AND

1. Boda Sudhakar Reddy,, S/o.Ram Reddy RTC Employee R/o.H.No,1-33, Bairamalgudda, L.B.Nagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Baby B.Priyanka,, Dio.Boda Sudhakar Reddy Student

3. Master B.Sai Teja Reddy,, S/o.Boda Sudhakar Reddy, Student Respondents 2 and 3 being minors represented by their natural guardian and mother Smt. B.Sumathi, Wo.B.Sudhakar Reddy, R/o.Plot No.26, Mallikarjunanagar, Bairamlguda, Ranga Reddy District.

4. The Manager, Union Bank, Dilsukhnagar Branch,, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ASMP. NO: 2239 OF 2007 Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and 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 grant injunction, pending the appeal, restraining the respondents from alienating the schedule property situated Plot bearing No.26 in Sy. 14, with ground and first floor semi finished admeasuring 289 Sq. Yards with built up area of 1500 Sq. feet Mallukarjuna Nagar, Bairmalguda, LB.Nagar Municipality.

Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. GAYATRI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI A. VENKATESH The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI APPEAL SUIT No.573 OF 2007 JUDGMENT:

The present appeal suit is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated .lZ.O7.2OOZ passed in O.S. No 170 of 2003 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy.

a 2.

Heard Ms. Gayatri, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the respondents. 3.

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondents informed that during the pendency of the appeal suit, the sole appellant died and the counsel appearing for the appellant sought time to take steps to bring the legal representatives on record and till date, no steps have been taken to bring the legal representatives on to record.

4.

On this aspect, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in spite of best efforts, no instructions have been received from the legal representatives. As such, she could not take required steps.

) 5.

ln this factual position, as the sole appellant died and none came on to record to pursue the appeal, the Appeal Suit is dismissed for default, as abated. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed Sd/. T. KRISHNA KUMAR PUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional District Judge (FTC) Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. (with records if any)

2. One CC to Ms. Gayatri, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Sri A. Venkatesh, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copres \,l

HIGH COURT DATED:31 101t2025 o7lEla,.

.$ C) :

<.

fr o I, +\ lo + / /_

JUDGMENT

AS.No.573 of 2007 DISMISSING THE APPEAL AS ABATED.

to