Thummala Bhooma Reddy v. Sarikala Pedda Bhoomanna

\ 132s4 |

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVAR,THY CIVIL REVISION PETITIO NNO:3127 0F 2022 Petition under Section 115 of CPC against the Order daled 29.08.2022 in 1.A.No.272 of 2018 in A.S.No.11 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Jagtial.

Between:

Thummala Bhooma Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, Aged 62 years, Occ. Agriculture, Fi/o Kustapoor Village, Mallapur Mandal, Jagtiat DiffillTlONER AND Sarikala Pedda Bhoomanna, S/o Narsimloo, Aged 57 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o Kushtapoor Village, Mallapur Mandal.

Thummala Saroja, Wo Late Ganga Reddy, Aged 52 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o Kushtapoor Village, Mallapur Mandal.

...RESPONDENTS !A NO: 2 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 stay all further proceedings in A.S.No.11 of 2018 on the file of Principal District Judge, Jagital during pendency of the C.R.P., and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI ALLURI DIVAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAI(RAVARTHY C L REVISION PETITIOT{ No.3127 of 2o22 ORDER:

This civil revision petition is filed challenging the order in 1.A No.272 of 2018 in A.S.No.11 of 2O18 dated 29.O8.2O22 on the file of Principal District Judge, Jagtial. 2.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the present case is filed challenging the application filed under Order 41 rule 27 of C.P.C. seeking permission to produce additional evidence 3.

During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the appeal itself was disposed of by the appellate Court and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. As the appeal has been disposed of, the interlocutory application filed in the appeal becomes infructuous and the counsel for the revision petitioner seeks permission to raise all the objections before the trial Court.

4.

Taking into consideration that appeal itself is disposed of, liberty is given to the petitioner to raise all the objections before the trial Court with regard to the documents, which the respondents want to file along with I.A.No.27 2 of 2OLg. (

5. With the above observations, civil revision petition ls disposed of. No costs'

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed Sdlc.SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / a/ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge, Jagtial.

2. One CC to Sri G Madhusudhan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies gbr \ \*,- i i :

/ HIGH COURT DATED: 1710412023

ORDER

CRP.No.3127 ot 2022 DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \,3 ) j i