IN THE COURT OF THE II JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,CITY CIVIL COURT : AT HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 01st Day of April, 2026.
PRESENT: Ms. Shalini Lingam
II JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.
Orig inal Suit No.1570 OF 2023
Between: Mohammed Hassan Sufyan S/o. Captain Sultan Baksh, born on 18-08-1974, Occ: Professor in University of Scranton, USA, R/o. H.No.101, Skyline Drive North, Clarks, Summit, P.A. 18411, Pennselvania, USA, permanent R/o.18-2-316/7/H/1, Plot No.164, Behind Asha Hospital, Road No.14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 34.
.. Plaintiff.
AND
1. Saba Anjum D/o. Aziz Ahmed Khan, born on 18-09-1978, R/o.74, Monalisa Apartments Mount Mary Foot Steps Band Stand, Bandra West Mumbai – 400050, Mobile No.961918011, Email ID:drsabakhan0786@gmail.com.
2. Branch Manager HDFC Bank, Shaikpet Branch, Hyderabad.
.. Defendants
Claim:This suit filed by the plaintiff Under Section - 26, Order -7, Rule -1 of CPC for Perpetual Injunction.
This suit came before me on this day in the presence of Sri.Shakeel Ahmed
Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri. Ravi Prakash Misra, Advocate for the Defendant
No.1, Sri. Balwanth Reddy, Advocate for the Defendant No.2, and of the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:
DOCKET ORDER
Plaintiff called absent. Inspite of several adjournments, there is no representation for
Plaintiff. The Learned. Counsel for Plaintiff failed to commence trial and since long there is no representation. Hence suit is dismissed for default.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 01st day of April, 2026.
II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE II JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,CITY CIVIL COURT : AT HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 11th Day of January, 2023.
PRESENT: SMT.RADHIKA GUNDLA
II JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.2453 OF 2022
Between: Rachita Agarwal, D/o. Bajranglal, Aged: 53 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Flat No.203, Fortune Park View, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
.. Plaintiff.
AND
Mir Rashad Ali, S/o. Mir Arshad Ali, Aged: 50 years, Occ: Employee, R/o. 16-7-723/A, Osmanpura, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 024.
.. Defendant
Claim:This suit filed by the plaintiff Under Section - 26, Order -7, Rule -1 of CPC for Perpetual Injunction.
This suit came before me on this day in the presence of M/s.Syed Mustafa Quadri,
Advocate for the Plaintiff and of M/s. Mohammed Abdul Aleem Advocate for the
Defendant and of the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:
DOCKET ORDER
Advancement IA is allowed. Suit is advanced from 20/1/2023 to today 11/1/2023,
Further Both side counsel filed Joint memo stating that the possession was delivered towards settlement to the defendant and keys of suit property also handed over to the defendant towards settlement along with amount of Rs.45,0000/- Heard both side counsel and parities since the matter is settled out of Court, Joint memo is recorded. In view of the Joint memo the above suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 11th day of January, 2023.
II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE II JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,CITY CIVIL COURT : AT HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 02nd Day of December, 2021.
PRESENT: SMT.RADHIKA GUNDLA
II JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.1338 OF 2021
Between:
1. Mr.V.Arun Kumar.
2. V. Vallinayagi.
.. Plaintiffs.
AND
1. C. Prasad.
2. Babu Mutyam.
3. C. Subhadra.
.. Defendants
Claim: This suit filed by the plaintiff Under Section - 26, Order -7, Rule -1 of CPC for Perpetual Injunction.
This suit came before me on this day in the presence of M/s.K.Rajashekar, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the
Court made the following:
DOCKET ORDER
Plaintiff No.1 and 2 appeared before this Court along with counsel, reported that the matter is settled out of Court, As such memo filed by plaintiff counsel is permitted and the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 02nt day of December, 2021.
II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE II JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,CITY CIVIL COURT : AT HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 01st Day of December, 2021.
PRESENT: SMT.RADHIKA GUNDLA
II JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 3068 OF 2015
Between:
M/s. Zuti Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Having its office at: 203 Pavani Annexe, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, India, Rep.by its Manager (HR), Shri T.D. Ravindran.
.. Plaintiff.
AND
Mr. M.Vignesh, S/o. S. Murugan, R/o.541/2, Manoranjitham Street, 6th Main Road, Gomathipuram, Madurai- 625020.
.. Defendant
Claim: This suit filed by the plaintiff Under Section - 26, Order -7, Rule -1 and 2 of CPC for Recovery of Money and Damages.
This suit came before me on this day in the presence of M/s.B.Chandrasen Reddy
Advocate for the Plaintiff and of M/s.K.V.R. Chowdary, Advocate for the Defendant and of the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:
DOCKET ORDER
Plaintiff called present reported that there is no cause of Auction, hence he is not interested to proceed, As such the memo filed by the counsel on behalf of plaintiff is permitted and the suit is dismissed as with drawn.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 1st day of December, 2021.
II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE II JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,CITY CIVIL COURT : AT HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 24th Day of November, 2021.
PRESENT: SMT.RADHIKA GUNDLA
II JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 924 OF 2021
Between:
Sri. Ramnik L. Shah, S/o. Sri. Liladhar Shah, Aged: 77 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.508, Mahaveer Apartments, King Kothi, Hyderabad, T.S.
.. Plaintiff.
AND
Sri. Jayesh Vinod Shah, S/o. Late Vinod L Shah, Aged: 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.502, Akash Ganga Apartments, Kachiguda, Hyderabad, T.S.
.. Defendant
Claim:- This suit filed by the plaintiff Under Section - 26, Order -7, Rule -1 of CPC praying this court may be pleased to direct the defendants jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to plaintiff towards damages for mental and physical agony, compensation for subjecting to defamation.
This suit came before me on this day in the presence of M/s.Sujith Jaiswal Advocate for the Plaintiff and of M/s.Thomas Joseph Lloyd, Advocate for the Defendants and of the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
Heard both sides for orders The counsel for plaintiff field memo on behalf on the plaintiff stating that the matter has been settled between the parties outside the court,
As such plaintiff does not want to proceed with the matter hence prayed to disposes off as the matter as not pressed for which reply was filed counsel for defendant stating that plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of fabricated documents and the suit was coming up for filing counter and written statement of defendant Infact it was the submission of the defendant counsel that already defendant took steps to prosecute the plaintiff for filing forged fabricated documents. As per the plaintiff counsel he filed separate suit for partition, hence he want to not press the present suit, As per defendant counsel already they have taken steps for protecting plaintiff. As such this court inclined to permit the memo filed by plaintiff and the suit is disposed off as not pressed
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24th day of November, 2021.
II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE II JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,CITY CIVIL COURT : AT HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 10th Day of November, 2021.
PRESENT: SMT.RADHIKA GUNDLA
II JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
E.P No. 107 of 2018
Between:
M/s. Suman Chit Fund Private Limited., .. Decree Holder.
And
1. Sri. Narsing Rao.
2. Sri. Balaram J.
3. Sri. Jaya Chandra B.
4. Dhan Raj. B. . Judgment Debtors
Claim: This is an Execution petition filed by the Decree Holder praying to attach the salaries of the JD No.2 as mentioned in Schedule Under Order 21 Rule 48 CPC against the Judgment Debtors No.2.
This Execution Petition is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s. G.Dhananjai, Advocate for the Dhr and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:
DOCKET ORDER
Counsel for Decree Holder filed not press memo against Judgement Debtor No.2,
Hence EP is dismissed as not pressed.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 10th day of November, 2021.
II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE II JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : HYDERABAD
PRESENT: SMT. N. MANJULA
III JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
FAC : II JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CITY CIVIL COURT:HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THIS THE 29th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
I.A.NO.4948 OF 2021
O.S.NO.3339 OF 2021
Between : Ramesh Gaikwad, S/o late Hanmanth Rao, Aged about 43 years, Occ : Business, R/o H.No.8-4-549/38/1/A, Natraj Nagar, A.G. Colony, Hyderabad.
...Petitioner/Plaintiff
And
1. Gottumukkala Vani Padmavathi W/o Gottumukkala Srinivas Rao, Aged: 52 years, Occ : Housewife, R/o H.No.8-4-550/142, Natraj Nagar, A.G. Colony, Hyderabad.
2. Gottumukkala Srinivas Rao, S/o not known, Aged: 59 years, Occ : Business, R/o H.No.8-4-550/142, Natraj Nagar, A.G. Colony, Hyderabad.
3. Kanumuri Subramanyeswara Raju, S/o late Sri Krishnam Raju, Aged: 53 years, Occ : Business, R/o H.No.8-4-550/142, Natraj Nagar, A.G. Colony, Hyderabad.
...Respondents/Defendants
Claim: This petition filed Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 & Sec.151 of CPC praying this court pleased to grant an exparte ad injunction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents restraining the respondents No.1 to 3, their agents, servants, henchman administrators, assignees etc., claiming title under them from alienating, transferring creating charge in respect of petition schedule property.
This petition coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Ajay Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner/plaintiff and this Court made the following:
DOCKET ORDER
Await notice of Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.3. Counsel for petitioner filed petitioner U/s.151 CPC and the same is allowed. Interim Order extended till 30/11/2021. For hearing call on 30/11/2021.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 29th day of October, 2021.
Smt.Radhika Gundla (For Smt. N. Manjula)
FAC II Junior Civil Judge
City Civil Court : Hyderabad
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: SMT. B. PRATHIMA, XXV Additional Chief Judge.
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 575 OF 2011
Between:
IL & FS Engineering and Construction Company Limited (formerly known as Maytas Infra Limited) rep by Manager-Legal Yaragorla Tagore .
.. Plaintiff
And
M/s.Bhargavarama Constructions, represented by its Proprietor Ravindranath Amancharela and Others.
.. Defendants
Claim: This suit filed for recovery of Rs.52,93,047/- with subsequent interest @ 18% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.47,90,088/- from the date of filing of the suit till the sate of realization and for costs of the suit.
This suit came before me on this day in the presence of M/s. A.Venkatesh Advocate for the Plaintiff and of M/s.K.Satyanarayana Advocate for the Defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:
Docket Order Dt. 06/12/2019
D1 counsel present. Plaintiff counsel absent. IA 290 of 2019, IA 291 of 2019, IA.
292 of 2019. U/O.XVIII Rule 17 U/S. 151 CPC (D2,D3) are dismissed. IA 93 of 2018 is pending for hearing and Arguments. Call on 13/12/2019.
Docket Order Dt. 13/12/2019
IAs pending. Memo filed by counsel that Interim Stay is granted in IA.1/2019
U/S.151 CPC in CRP 757/2019 on the file of Honorable High Court. As seen from the order Interim Stay is only till 12/07/2019 and this Court did not receive any further stay order from Honorable High Court. Hence, as the matter is old one call on by 20/12/2019.
Docket Order Dt. 20/12/2019
Memo filed by D1 and D2 that CRP 757 of 2019 is pending and they seeking time regarding Interim Stay. Call on by 07/01/2020.
Docket Order Dt. 07/01/2020
Plaintiff counsel absent. Memo filed by D1, D2 for vide CRP 757/2019 is pending. No specific stay is reported finally for reporting specific stay of the OS call on by 20/01/2020.
Docket Order Dt. 20/01/2020
Plaintiff counsel absent. Defendant counsel present. Memo filed by Defendant counsel that they filed CRP before the Honorable High Court CRP 13 of 2020, 51 of 2020 and 54 of 2020, Honorable High Court observed the Stay petition and some orders were passed, but order copy is not yet received and sought time. For filing Stay order call on by 27/01/2020.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on the above dates.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: SMT. B. PRATHIMA, XXV Additional Chief Judge.
Dated, this the 23rd Day of January, 2020.
AOP No.23 OF 2019
Between: Mrs.Khatija Begum and Others
.. Petitioners
And
M/s.Kancharla Constructions Pvt Ltd Rep. by its Managing Director K. Prithvi Reddy & Others.
.. Respondents
Claim:This petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1995.
This petition came before me on this day in the presence of M/s. K.V.Raghuveer Advocate for the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and of M/s.Mohan Rao Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:
DOCKET ORDER
Both side counsel present. Memo filed by R1 to R4 counsel that the proceedings
before the Arbitrator were terminated on 20/01/2020 holding that the Arbitrator has no
Jurisdiction for granting the prayer of cancellation sought. Copy of the award is appended to the memo. Learned counsel for R1 to R4 vehemently opposed for extending the Interim Order stating that the Arbitral proceedings have concluded.
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that he is yet to receive a copy and even other wise he has got jurisdiction to seek Interim Order U/S 9. For hearing on this aspect call 18/01/2020, meanwhile Ad-interim injunction extended till 18/2/2020.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 23rd day of January, 2020.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: SMT. B. PRATHIMA, XXV Additional Chief Judge.
Dated, this the 21st Day of January, 2020.
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 290 OF 2014
Between:
Shri Naresh Kumar Sanghi, S/o. Late Shri Harishankar Sanghi, Aged: 59 years Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.7, Viman Nagar, Rasoolpura, BHEL Colony, Secunderabad.
.. Plaintiff
And
1. Shri Nathuram Sanghi, S/o. Late Shri Harishankar Sanghi, Aged: 61 years Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.7, Viman Nagar, Rasoolpura, BHEL Colony, Secunderabad.
2. Shri Govind Ram Sanghi, S/o. Late Shri Harishankar Sanghi, Aged: 56 years Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.7, Viman Nagar, Rasoolpura, BHEL Colony, Secunderabad.
3. Shri Rameshchand Sanghi, S/o. Late Shri Harishankar Sanghi, Aged: 53 years Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.7, Viman Nagar, Rasoolpura, BHEL Colony, Secunderabad.
4. Shri Gopal Sanghi, S/o. Late Shri Harishankar Sanghi, Aged: 48 years Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.7, Viman Nagar, Rasoolpura, BHEL Colony, Secunderabad.
5. Shri Sudha Sanghi, W/o. Gopal Sanghi, Aged: 46 years Occ: Housewife, R/o. Plot No.7, Viman Nagar, Rasoolpura, BHEL Colony, Secunderabad.
6. Shri Sunanda Sanghi, W/o. Jitender Sanghi, Aged: 34 years Occ: Housewife, R/o. Plot No.7, Viman Nagar, Rasoolpura, BHEL Colony, Secunderabad.
7. Smt.Kamala Bai, W/o. Shri Ramesh Kumar, Aged: 52 years Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 21/7/616, Khokar Wadi, Hyderabad.
8. Shri Ankesh Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Shri Ramesh Kumar, Aged: 28 years, Occ: Service, R/o. 21/7/616, Khokar Wadi, Hyderabad.
9. The Punjab National Bank, Represented by its Branch Manager, M.G. Road Branch, Secunderabad.
10. ICICI Bank represented by its Branch Manager, Begumpet Branch, Begumpet, Hyderabad.
11. Axis Bank represented by its Branch Manager, Hanuman Tekdi Branch Koti, Hyderabad.
12. Axis Bank represented by its Branch Manager, Greenlands Branch, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
13. Indus Ind Bank represented by its Branch Manager, Somajiguda Branch, Somaji Guda, Hyderabad.
..Cont..2. : 2 :
14. Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited Represented by it Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.
15. The Vijaya Bank rep. by its Branch Manager, SD Road Branch, Secunderabad.
.. Defendants
Claim: This suit filed Under Section 26 and Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
This suit came before me on this day in the presence of M/s.K.B.Ramanna Dora Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri.S. Malla Rao, Advocate for the Defendant No.1,4 to 8 and of Sri. K.R.L Sarma, Advocate for Defendant No.14 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:
DOCKET ORDER
Plaintiff and counsel absent. Defendant and counsel absent. No representation for anyone even when called at 4.30 PM and no witness is present inspite of conditional order. Suit is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 21st day of January, 2020.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: SMT. B. PRATHIMA, XXV Additional Chief Judge.
Dated, this the 20th Day of December, 2019.
IA No. 424 OF 2019 in SOP No.1001 OF 2013
Between:
K. Rani Prameela and Others.
.. Petitioners/Plaintiffs
And
The Baptist Church Dilsukhnagar Rep.By its Secretary and Others.
.. Respondents/Defendants
Claim: This petition filed Under Order XVIII Rule 17 R/w Sec.151 of CPC praying this court pleased to recall the evidence of RW1 for the purpose of cross examination.
This petition came before me on this day in the presence of M/s. Jocob Mudi Advocate for the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and of M/s.B.Madhusudhan Rao Advocate for the Respondents/Defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:
DOCKET ORDER
Heard petitioner counsel. Respondent counsel absent. I have perused the petition and affidavit. With out making any observations on the statements made in petition affidavit and counter, I hold that as this petition itself is pending for nearly one year by which time much evidence could have been recorded, an opportunity can be given for cross-examination of witness. Petition is allowed.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20th day of December, 2019.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: SMT. B. PRATHIMA, XXV Additional Chief Judge,
Dated, this the 22nd Day of January, 2020.
IA No.1450 OF 2019 in O S No. 1059 OF 2019
Between:
Sri. Jayalakshmi Automotives Pvt. Ltd., .. Petitioner/Plaintiff
And
Sri. Sabbineni Sarojini and Others. .. Respondent/Defendants
Claim: This petition filed Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 & Sec.151 of CPC praying this court pleased to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the petition schedule property in any manner or otherwise create encumbrance or 3rd party interest thereon pending disposal of the suit.
This petition came before me on this day in the presence of M/s. A. Sudhakara Rao Advocate for the Plaintiff/Respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:
DOCKET ORDER
Sri.K. Venugopal Advocate filed vakalat for Respondent No1/Defendant No.1 and
Sri. K. Siddharth Rao Advocate filed vakalat for Respondent No.2/Defendant No.2 on petition, Ad-interim injunction is extended till 25/02/2020.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 22nd day of January, 2020.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: SMT. B. PRATHIMA, XXV Additional Chief Judge,
Dated, this the 17th Day of December, 2019.
IA No.1382 OF 2019 in O.S No. 87 OF 2014
Between:
Smt. P.Bharathi W/o. P. Krishna Aged: 37 year R/o. H.No.12/1/470, Lalapet, Secunderabad- 500017.
.. Petitioner/Plaintiff No.1
And
1. Smt. N.Jayanthi W/o. N. Jagan Aged: 45 years, R/o. H.No.1-17/A, Ferozguda Bowenpally, Secunderabad-500011.
.. Respondent/Plaintiff No.2
2. Sri.D. Kishore S/o. D.Yellaiah Aged: 48 years, Occ: Painter R/o.H.No.14-20-677/539 Near Ayyappa Temple Sri Vivekananda Nagar Colony Borabanda Hyderabad.
.. Respondent/Defendant No.1
3. K.Sandhya D/o. Smt. Late K. Susheela Aged: 24 years, Occ: Pvt. Service.
.. Respondent/Defendant No.2
4. K.Vijay Kumar S/o. Late K. Susheela, 4 Minor, Occ: Student, rep.by father/natural Guardian K. Ramulu, both R/o. Flat No.22, Phoolbagh Colony Ferozguda, Bowenpally, Secunderabad-500011.
.. Respondent/Defendant No.3
5. Sri. Prem, S/o. Not known to plaintiff Aged: 43 years, Occ: Business (paper shop)
6. Sri. Shakel, S/o. Not known to plaintiff Aged: 33 years, Occ: Business ( Fine Wheel Throwing).
7. Sri. Anwar, S/o. Not known to plaintiff Aged: 33 years, Occ: Business ( Anwar Bike Point).
8. Sri. Narasimha, S/o. Not known to plaintiff Aged: 43 years, Occ: Business.
9. Sri. Veeramani, W/o. Not known to plaintiff Aged: 38 years, Occ: Business.
10. Smt. Sathamma, W/o. Not known to plaintiff Aged: 43 years. Respondents 4 to 9 are residing at: H.No.6-3-709/A/11, Near Pochamma Temple, Pochamma Basthi, Panjagutta, Hyderabad – 500082. Defendants No.4 to 9 are Eo Nominee .. Eo Nominees Claim: This petition filed Under Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure to record and consequently pass final decree.
...Cont.2. : 2 :
This petition came before me on this day in the presence of V.Sangeetha Advocate
for the Petitioner/Plaintiff and of Sri.K.Ausar Advocate for the Respondents/Defendants
and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner/1st Plaintiff present. 2nd plaintiff present. 1St, 2nd and 3rd Defendants are present. Counsel for plaintiffs, D1 to D3 counsel present. The terms of compromise are read over to the parties and they admitted the same as true and voluntarily made and sought to pass final decree in terms of the compromise.
In the circumstances, petition for compromise is allowed. In token of agreeing terms of compromise, all parties to compromise signed in my presence and they agreed that the property be divided in to 4 equal shares and be alloted the shares as shown in the sketch plan filed today in IA 1385 of 2019 U/S 151 CPC.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 17th day of December, 2019.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
OS 87 of 2014
Petitioner / Plaintiff NO.1 present. 2nd plaintiff present. 1St, 2nd and 3rd defendants are present. Counsel for plaintiff. D1 to D3 counsel present. The terms of compromise are read and to
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: SMT. B. PRATHIMA, XXV Additional Chief Judge,
Dated, this the 07th Day of January, 2020.
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 776 OF 2010
Between:
K.Rakesh S/o. Dr.K.Ramachandraiah Aged: 27 years Occ: Service R/o. 4-7-67 PUTTLBS WOODS DRIVE DUBLIN OHIO, USA 43016. Rep.by its GPA Holder of Mr.Sadanand Jilkar S/o.Late Mr.Madhavarao Jilkar Aged: 60 years Occ: Retired from service R/o. Plot No.202 H.No. 1-5-16/A/B Jeevan Mansion Musheerabad Hyderabad.
.. Plaintiff
AND
1. Mr. K.Satyanarayana S/o.Late K. Lakshmaiah Aged: 53 years Occ: Govt Servant R/o.10-3- 652(137/3 Rt) Vijayanagar Colony Hyderabad.
2. Sri. K.Rama Krishna S/o. Late K.Venkateswarlu Aged: 25 years Occ: Student of M/S R/o.10-3-652(137/3 Rt) Vijayanagar Colony Hyderabad.
3. Ms.K.Sarojanamma D/o. Late K.Lakshmayya Aged: 65 years Occ: Household R/o.10-3-
652(137/3 Rt) Vijayanagar Colony Hyderabad. .. Defendants
Claim:-This suit filed Under Section 26 and Order 7, Rule 1 CPC for Declaration of the Title, Possession and for Mesne profits.
This suit came before me on this day in the presence of Suneetha Gummadi Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri. Ali Farooq Advocate for the Defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
PW1 absent. Both side counsel absent. D1 to D3 counsel present after call work.
Plaintiff counsel also present. Memo filed that costs are paid. Junior counsel of plaintiff present and reported Senior is out of station and witness is not present. Suit is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 7th day of January, 2020.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: SMT. B. PRATHIMA, XXV Additional Chief Judge,
Dated, this the 27th Day of December, 2019.
IA No.1450 OF 2019 in O.S No. 1059 OF 2019
Between:
Sri. Jayalakshmi Automotives Pvt. Ltd., .. Petitioner/Plaintiff
And
Sri. Sabbineni Sarojini and Others .. Respondent/Defendants
Claim:-This petition filed Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 & Sec.151 of CPC praying this court pleased to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the petition schedule property in any manner or otherwise create encumbrance or 3rd party interest thereon pending disposal of the suit.
This petition came before me on this day in the presence of M/s. A. Sudhakara Rao Advocate for the Plaintiff/Respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
This petition is filed U/or. 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking this Court to restrain the respondents l and 2 from alienating the petition schedule immovable property by way of temporary injunction and meanwhile to grant Ad-interim injunction.
Petitioner claims that it is a public limited company, the respondent No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of petition schedule property having purchased the same from one Smt. Satyavati rep. by her GPA V. Suresh Babu , dt.3-8-2009, the first respondent for her personal and family necessities has offered to sell the petition schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.six crores and accordingly the first respondent executed agreement of sale on 29-3-2018 and in turn the petitioner paid an advance amount of Rs.70 lakhs to first respondent by way of DD, dt.29-3-2018 favouring 2nd respondent drawn on HDFC Bank Limited and petitioner agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.5,30,00,000/- on or before 3-4-2019 to the credit of 2nd respondent Bank with whom the 1st respondent mortgaged the petition schedule property, thereafter 1st respondent postponed executing a regular registered sale deed in terms of agreement of sale, dt.29-3-2018, it appears that the 1st respondent mortgaged the petition schedule property to 2nd respondent for various credit facilities, further more, the 2nd respondent having permitted the 1st respondent to alienate the property and : 2 :
agreed to release the schedule property from the charge created thereon in favour of the
Bank as per the letters and other correspondence is under legal obligation to keep up it’s promise.
Petitioner further averred that the suit is filed for Specific Performance of agreement of Sale dt.29-3-2018 by directing the respondent No.1 to execute the Regd.,
Sale Deed in favour of petitioner and prayed that a restraining order may be granted restraining the respondents from alienating the property and meanwhile sought to grant Ad-interim injunction dispensing notice to respondents.
In support of his case, the petitioner filed Agreement of Sale dt.29-3-2018,
Encumbrance Certificate for (30) years from the year 1-1-1989 to 24-11-2019, Bank
Statement showing the payments, correspondence letters and notice issued to respondent dt.3-4-2019 calling upon the respondent to execute the registered sale deed on which the 1st respondent refused to do so.
The above documents show prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and to keep the property in the same status till some time, at least, till respondents appear in this case and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, I hold that Ad-interim injunction can be granted dispensing notice to respondents.
Issue Ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the petition schedule immovable properties till 22-01-2020.
Comply Order 39 Rule 3(a) CPC by 30-12-2019.
Claim: This petition filed Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 & Sec.151 of CPC praying this court pleased to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the petition schedule property in any manner or otherwise create encumbrance or 3rd party interest thereon pending disposal of the suit.
This petition came before me on this day in the presence of M/s. A. Sudhakara Rao Advocate for the Plaintiff/Respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 30th day of December, 2019.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: SMT. B. PRATHIMA, XXV Additional Chief Judge,
Dated, this the 05th Day of December, 2019.
IA No.1468 OF 2016 in O.S No. 912 OF 2014
Between:
Sri.Gurleen Kaur Rhoud previously known as Gurleen Kaur Sabharwal and Others
.. Petitioner/Defendant No.1 to 3
And
Sri.Harjit Singh. .. Respondent/Plaintiff
Claim:-This petition filed Under Rule 32 of CRP praying this court may be pleased to permit the GPA Holder to act and appear on behalf of the Petitioner/Defendant Nos. 1 to 3.
This petition came before me on this day in the presence of M/s.Mohd.Rahmatullah Khan Advocate for the Respondent/plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 seeking this Court to permit the GPA Holder to act and appear on behalf of petitioner/defendants 1 to 3.
The deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the petition is the GPA holder and he affirmed that petitioners 1 to 3 appointed him as their GPA vide document dt. 7-3- 2016. The he filed the original GPA on the file of OS 98/2016 on the file of XI ACJ and he may be permitted to act and appear on behalf of petitioners and the GPA is still subsisting.
In support of his contention, petitioners filed photostat copy of GPA, dt. 7-3- 2016.
No counter is filed to this petition. No arguments are advanced by either side to this petition.
The suit is very old one and is of the year, 2014. In the circumstances, I hold that petitioner can be permitted to act as GPA holder of petitioners 1 to 3. Evidently, petition is filed by the petitioners through an Advocate and they are represented by an Advocate.
Hence, the petition is allowed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 05th day of December, 2019.
XXV Additional Chief Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: SMT. B. PRATHIMA, XXV Additional Chief Judge.
IA No.1489 OF 2018 in O.S No. 706 OF 2018
Between:
Sri. Yogesh Kumar Agarwal. .. Petitioner/Plaintiff
And
Sri. Badri Vishwal Agarwal and Others. .. Respondents/Defendants
Claim: This petition filed Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, R/w. Sec. 151 of C.P.C praying this court may be pleased to grant an Ad-Interim Injunction restraining the Respondents from alienating or creating any charge over the petition schedule properties pending disposal of the main suit.
This petition came before me on this day in the presence of M/s.Sukhraj, Advocate
for the Petitioner/Plaintiff and of M/s. Shyam S. Agrawal Advocate for the
Respondents/Defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:
Docket Order Dt.18/12/2019
Counters of R1 to R5, R7, R9 to R12 no filed. It is held that R1 to R5, R7, R9 to
R12 have no counter. On petition, Ad-interim Injunction is extended till 23/01/2020. For hearing call on by 23/01/2020.
Docket Order Dt.23/01/2020
On petition, Ad-interim Injunction is extended till 12/02/2020. For hearing call on by 23/01/2020. For counters.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the above dates.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT: AT HYDERABAD.
PRESENT : Smt. B.Prathima, XXV Additional Chief Judge.
Dated, this the 19th Day of December, 2019.
MVOP No. 2730 OF 2017
Between:
1. Smt. M. Vinoda, W/o.M.Pochaiah, Aged: 46 years, Occ: Household.
2. M. Pochaiah, S/o. Late M.Narsaiah, Aged: 51 years, Occ: Nil, Both R/o.H.No.7-19, Jekkaloddi Village, Thimmapur (Haveli & Rural) Hanmakonda, Warangal District, Presently Residing at Flat No.201, Tirumala Towers, Malakpet, Hyderabad.
.. Petitioners
AND
1. Maidam Suresh, S/o. Pochaiah, Aged: Major, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.7-19, Jekkaloddi Village, Thimmapur (Haveli & Rural), Hanmakonda, Warangal District (Owner of the Auto bearing No. TS-03-UA-2527).
2. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep.by its Branch Manager, 2nd Floor, Uma Chambers, Banjara Hills Road, Punjagutta, Hyderabad (Policy No. 88016038 and valid from 12-6-2014 to 11-06-2015).
.. Respondents
Claim:- This petition filed by the petitioners for Claim petition filed for Grant of Compensation Under Section 163 – A of Motor Vehicle ACT 1988 and Rule 144 of A.P.M.V. Rules,1989.
This petition came before me on this day in the presence of M/s.T.Vishwarupa Chary, Advocate for the Petitioners and of M/s.M.Guru Dutt, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and of the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner counsel present. R2 counsel present. Petitioner counsel endorsed ‘not pressed’ on this petition. Petition is dismissed as not pressed. No costs.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19th day of December, 2019.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.
PRESENT : Smt. B.Prathima, XXV Additional Chief Judge,
Dated, this the 26th Day of November, 2019.
IA No. 34 OF 2018 in O.S No. 422 OF 2008
Between:
VST Industries Limited. .. Plaintiff/Petitioner
AND
Shreya Tobacco Products Private Limited. .. Respondent/Defendant
Claim:- This petition filed Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and2, R/w. Sec. 151 of C.P.C praying this court may be pleased to grant an ex-parte Ad Interim Injunction restraining the Respondent, either by himself or through his dealers, distributors, agents,employees, servants, and/or assigns from operating any business or selling, offering for sale, advertising and/or in any manner dealing in service or goods on the Internet or otherwise under the trade mark LOTAIL and or any other trade mark which is identical with aor deceptively similarly to the mark TOTAL of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever during the pendency of the suit.
This petition came before me on this day in the presence of M/s.Hemant Daswani, Advocate for the Petitioner/plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
Respondent absent. Petitioner counsel present. On petition, Ad-interim injunction is extended till 11/02/2020. Respondent absent. Issue fresh notice to Respondent through Registered Email and Courier call on by 11/02/2020.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 26th day of November, 2019.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT: AT HYDERABAD.
PRESENT : Smt. B.Prathima, XXV Additional Chief Judge.
Dated, this the 11th Day of December, 2019.
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 1022 OF 2017
Between: Smt.D.Jana bai W/o late. D.Shankaraiah Aged: 75 yrs, Occ: Household, R/o.15-9-130,
Maharaj Gunj, Gowliguda chaman, Hyderabad. .. Plaintiff
AND
1. Smt. C.Nirmala W/o. C. Om Prakash Aged : 48 yrs, Occ: Household.
2. Sri.C.Mrunal Sen S/o. C. Om Prakash Aged: 29 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, Both are R/o.H.No.A-124, Phase-1, Near HUDA complex, Vanasthalipuram,
Hyderabad. .. Defendants
Claim:- This suit filed by the plaintiff for Cancellation, Damages and Injunction Under Section 26 Order VII Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C.
This suit came before me on this day in the presence of M/s.E.T Manjushaa Advocate for the Plaintiff and of M/s. V.Venkat Srinivas, Advocate for the Defendants and of the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
Both side present. Memo filed by plaintiff counsel not pressing the suit stating that the matter is settled out of Court. Suit is dismissed as not pressed as settled out of
Court. No costs.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 11th day of December, 2019.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT: AT HYDERABAD.
PRESENT : Smt. B.Prathima, XXV Additional Chief Judge.
Dated, this the 11th Day of December, 2019.
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 384 OF 2019
Between:
Smt.Farina Masood Khan, W/o. Mr.Masood Khan, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business,
R/o.3-6-195/A, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. .. Plaintiff.
AND
1. Smt.Duriya S Jiddawala, W/o. Shabbir Bhai Jiddawal, Aged about 65 years, Occ: Household, R/o.Mansarovar – III, Flat No.839/9, Old Bowenaplly, Secunderabad- 500015.
2. Idris, S/o. Shabbir Bhai Jiddawala, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Private Job, R/o.Mansarovar-III, Flat No.839/9, Old Bowenaplly, Secunderabad- 500015.
3. Shabbir Bhai Jiddawala, S/o. Hussain Jiddawala, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Mansarovar-III, Flat No.839/9, Old Bowenaplly, Secunderabad- 500015.
Claim:- This suit filed by the plaintiff Under Section - 26, Order -7, Rule -1 & 2 of CPC praying this court may be pleased to direct the defendants jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to plaintiff towards damages for mental and physical agony, compensation for subjecting to defamation.
This suit came before me on this day in the presence of M/s.Sujith Jaiswal Advocate for the Plaintiff and of M/s.Thomas Joseph Lloyd, Advocate for the Defendants and of the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
Memo filed by counsel for plaintiff in section vide SR 6392/19 dated 02/12/19 for withdrawal of the suit as the matter is settled out of Court. Plaintiff and counsel absent today, In view of the memo, the suit is dismissed as “not pressed” as settled out of Court.
No costs.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 11th day of December, 2019.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.
PRESENT : Smt. B.Prathima, XXV Additional Chief Judge.
Dated, this the 6th Day of December, 2019.
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 629 OF 2019
Between:
1. Sri Rajan @ Rajender, S/o. Late Anjaiah, Aged: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.12-2- 447/A, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.
2. Sri.K.Vijay Kumar, S/o. L.Lakshmaiah, Aged: 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.12- 2- 447/A, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.
.. Plaintiffs
AND
1. Hathway Digital Private Limited (Head Office), 805/805, 8th floor, Windsor, Off CST Road, Kalina Santacruz (East), Mumbai, Mumbai City, Maharashtra, India – 400098.
2. Hathway Digital Private Limited (Regional Office), 805/805, 8th floor, Windsor, Off CST Road, Kalina Santacruz (East), Mumbai, Mumbai City, Maharashtra, India – 400098.
3. Hathway Digital Private Limited (Zonal Office), Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
.. Defendants
Claim:- This suit filed by the plaintiffs for Recovery of Rs.18,00,000/- Under Order 6 Rule 1 R/w. Section 26 of Civil Procedure Code.
This petition came before me on this day in the presence of M/s.I.Ramesh Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of M/s. A.Tulasi Raj Gokul, Advocate for the Defendants and of the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
Plaintiff counsel present. Defendant counsel present. Plaintiff present. Memo filed by Plaintiff counsel to the effect that matter is settled out of Court in terms of the contents of memo and sought to dismiss the suit. In view of the memo, suit is dismissed as ‘not pressed’ as settled out of Court. No costs.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 6th day of December, 2019.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.
PRESENT : Smt. B.Prathima, XXV Additional Chief Judge,
Dated, this the 26th Day of November, 2019.
IA No. 584 OF 2019 in O.S No. 460 OF 2019
Between:
VST Industries Limited. .. Plaintiff/Petitioner
AND
Shreya Tobacco Products Private Limited. .. Respondent/Defendant
Claim:- This petition filed Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and2, R/w. Sec. 151 of C.P.C praying this court may be pleased to grant an ex-parte Ad Interim Injunction restraining the Respondent, either by himself or through his dealers, distributors, agents,employees, servants, and/or assigns from operating any business or selling, offering for sale, advertising and/or in any manner dealing in service or goods on the Internet or otherwise under the trade mark LOTAIL and or any other trade mark which is identical with aor deceptively similarly to the mark TOTAL of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever during the pendency of the suit.
This petition came before me on this day in the presence of M/s.Hemant Daswani, Advocate for the Petitioner/plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
Respondent absent. Petitioner counsel present. On petition, Ad-interim injunction is extended till 11/02/2020. Respondent absent. Issue fresh notice to Respondent through Registered Email and Courier call on by 11/02/2020.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 26th day of November, 2019.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE:CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 6th day of February, 2018.
Present: Smt.A.V.L. Sathyavathi. XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hydedrabad.
I.A.No. 2152 of 2014 In AS.No. 250 of 2014
Between:
T. Gopal Reddy. ..Petitioner/Appellant.
AND
1. P.Satyanarayana.
2. P.Rajanarsu.
3. T.Sammi Reddy. ..Respondents/Respondents
Claim:-This is a petition filed by the petitioner/Appellant U/O. 41 Rule 5 of CPC with a prayer to suspend the Judgment and decree dt. 17.06.2014 in OS 1514/2013 on the file of XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad pending disposal of the main Appeal.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri. Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig Nizami, Advocate counsel for Petitioner/Appellant and of Sri. A.Vijay Saradhi, Advocate for the Respondent/Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
Record shows on contest this court passed orders. Hence proceedings in this petition are closed.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 6th day of February, 2018.
Smt. B.Prathima, For Smt.A.V.L. Sathyavathi, XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD
Dated, this the 20th Day of November, 2019.
PRESENT : Smt. B.Prathima, XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IA No. 1167 OF 2019 in O.S No. 1004 OF 2019
Between:
1. Smt. Jorrigala Eshwaramma W/o. late Sri J.Ramulu, aged about 70 years Occ: household, R/o.7-1-276/36 Suprabath Nagar, Balkampet, Hyderabad.
2. Sri Jorrigala Balraj S/o. late Sri J.Ramulu, aged about 50 years Occ: business, R/o.7-1-276/36 Suprabath Nagar, Balkampet, Hyderabad.
3. Sri Jorrigala Ravi S/o. late Sri J.Ramulu, aged about 40 years Occ: business, R/o.LIG-205/3, Near Sai Baba Temple KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
4. Sri Jorrigala Mallesh S/o. late Sri J.Ramulu, aged about 39 years Occ: business, R/o.7-1-276/36 Suprabath Nagar, Balkampet, Hyderabad.
5. Smt. Nandikanti Kavitha @ Alivelu W/o. Sri Nandikanti Pandu, D/o. late Sri J Ramaiah aged about 37 years, Occ: household R/o. 7-1-304/21/B, Chinna Rythu Bazar B.K. Guda, Sanathnagar I E, Hyderabad.
6. Smt. R. Bhagyalakshmi W/o. Sri R. Kiran Kumar, D/o. late J. Sri Ramaiah aged about 36 years, Occ: household R/o. 8-3-225/B/159, Yadagiri Nagar Yousufguda, Hyderabad. …Petitioners/Plaintiffs
AND
1. Smt. J. Lakshmamma W/o. late Sri Jangaiah, aged about 65 years Occ: household, R/o. 6-3-788/2, Ganesh Nagar Opposite Big Bazar, Punjagutta, Hyderabad.
2. Smt. V. Hemalatha @ Shoba W/o. late Sri V.Yadagiri, D/o. late Sri Jangaiah aged about 45 years, Occ: household R/o.7-1-276/36, Suprabath Nagar Balkampet, Hyderabad. .. Cont.2.
: 2 :
3. Sri Jorrigala Manohar S/o. late Sri J. Jangaiah, aged about 43 years Occ: business, R/o. 6-3-788/2, Sri Ganesh Nagar Opposite Big Bazar, Punjagutta, Hyderabad.
4. Sri J. Srinivas S/o. Sri J. Ramulu, aged about 37 years Occ : business, R/o.7-1-276/36 Suprabath Nagar, Balkampet, Hyderabad.
5. Master Nishal S/o. late Sri J. Ashok, aged about 12 years, Occ: student represented by her natural mother and guardian Smt. Radhika, W/o. late Sri Ashok, R/o.7-1-276/36 Suprabath Nagar, Balkampet, Hyderabad.
6. Ms. Praharshini D/o. late Sri J. Ashok, aged about 15 years, Occ: student represented by her Natural Mother and Guardian Smt. Radhika, W/o. late Sri Ashok, R/o.7-1-276/36 Suprabath Nagar, Balkampet, Hyderabad.
7. Sri Voore Satyanarayana S/o. late Sri Voore Ramulu, aged about 52 years Occ: business, R/o. 7-1-276/36 Suprabath Nagar, Balkampet, Hyderabad.
8. Sri Voore Krishna S/o. late Sri Voore Ramulu, aged about 43 years Occ: business, R/o. 7-1-276/36 Suprabath Nagar, Balkampet, Hyderabad.
9. Sri Voore Arjun S/o. late Sri Voore Ramulu, aged about 41 years Occ: business, R/o. 7-1-276/36 Suprabath Nagar, Balkampet, Hyderabad.
10. Sri Voore Gyaneshwar S/o. late Sri Voore Ramulu, aged about 40 years Occ: business, R/o. 7-1-276/36 Suprabath Nagar, Balkampet, Hyderabad.
11. Smt. Saraswathi D/o. late Sri Voore Ramulu, aged about 51 years Occ: business, R/o. 7-1-276/36 Suprabath Nagar, Balkampet, Hyderabad.
12. Smt. Manikyam
D/o. late Sri Voore Ramulu, aged about 45 years Occ: business, R/o. 7-1-276/36 Suprabath Nagar, Balkampet, Hyderabad.
13. Smt. Dhanalakshmi D/o. late Sri Voore Ramulu, aged about 38 years Occ: business, R/o. 7-1-276/36 Suprabath Nagar, Balkampet, Hyderabad. ... Cont..3 : 3 :
14. Sri V. Santosh Kumar S/o. late Sri V.Yadagiri, aged about 27 years Occ : business, R/o.7-1-276/36 Suprabath Nagar, Balkampet, Hyderabad.
15. Ms. V. Sapna D/o. late Sri V.Yadagiri, aged about 24 years Occ : business, R/o.7-1-276/36 Suprabath Nagar, Balkampet, Hyderabad.
16. Sri V. Sajev Kumar S/o. late Sri V.Yadagiri, aged about 20 years Occ : business, R/o.7-1-276/36 Suprabath Nagar, Balkampet, Hyderabad.
17. Smt. J. Pallavi W/o. Sri Jorrigala Manohar aged about 43 years, Occ : household R/o. 6-3-788/2, Sri Ganesh Nagar Opposite Big Bazar, Punjagutta, Hyderabad.… Respondents/Defendants
Claim:-This petition filed Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, R/w. Sec. 151 of C.P.C praying this court may be pleased to a Temporary Injunction restraining the defendants and others claiming through or under them from alienating, transferring, creating any thrid party interest, inducting theid partiets in possession of the schedule I to V properlties, as given in detail in the petition, or changing the nature of the suit properties, pending disposal of the suit.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.Shyam S. Agrawal, Advocate for the Petitioner/plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
This petition is filed U/or. 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking this Court to restrain the respondents l to 17 from alienating the petition schedule I to V immovable properties.
Petitioners l to 6 claimed that they filed the suit for partition and that respondents are their co-personers, that respondents giving share to them, have entered into a regd.
Partition Deed, dt.10-10-2019 document No.2902/2019 and on which document respondents l and 2 claimed only themselves as legal heirs of Smt. Balamma @
Balamani, that the original ancestors J. Balaraju under whom respondents l and 3 are claiming the suit property, also had another son, by name, J. Ramulu of whom petitioners are the legal heirs and the suit is for partition and separate possession of suit properties and restraining order may be granted restraining the respondents from alienating the property and meanwhile sought to grant Ad-interim injunction dispensing notice to respondents. ...Cont.4 : 4 :
Counsel for petitioners submit that respondents l and 3 are making preparation for alienating the properties, and if the same is permitted to be done, the litigation will multiply.
In support of their case, the petitioners filed the following documents:
1) Death Certificates of J. Ramulu and J. Ashok, white ration card of J. Ramulu, C.C.of partition deeds bearing Nos.2902/17 and 2933/19, copies of Aadhar Cards, property tax bills, market value certificates, Memorandum of deposit of title deeds bearing
No.3836/18 and encumbrance certificates of schedule I and III properties.
The above documents prima facie show the case in favour of the petitioners and to keep the property in the same status till some time, at least, till respondents appear in this case and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, I hold that Ad-interim injunction can be granted .
Issue Ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the petition schedule immovable properties.
Comply Order 39 Rule 3(a) CPC by 22/11/2019. Meanwhile Issue urgen notice to respondents by 13/12/2019.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20th day of November, 2019.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.
PRESENT : Smt. B.Prathima, XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Dated, this the 22nd Day of November, 2019.
IA No. 1190 OF 2019 in O.S No. 1014 OF 2019
Between: Najmunnisa Begum, W/o.the late Syed Naqi Mehdi, Aged : 64 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 8-2-674/D,
Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad,T.S. .. Plaintiff/Petitioner
AND
Syed Ali Mehdi and others. .. Respondents/Defendants
To,
1. Syed Ali Mehdi, S/o. The Late Syed Naqu Mehdi, Aged : 46 years, Occ: Working Abroad, R/o. H.No.431, Perum Cheru Street No.4, Gandamguda, Hyderabad – 86, T.S., Presently residing at Scotlant.
2. Syed Mohammed Mehdi, S/o. The Late Syed Naqu Mehdi, Aged : 46 years, Occ: Working Abroad, R/o. H.No.431, Perum Cheru Street No.5, Gandamguda, Hyderabad – 86, T.S., Presently residing at USA.
3. Syed Fazal Mehdi S/o. The Late the Mohammed Ali Aged: 67 years, R/o. H.No. 431, Perum Cheru Street No.5, Gandamguda, Hyderabad-86, T.S. … Respondents/Defendants.
Claim:-This petition filed Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and2, R/w. Sec. 151 of C.P.C praying this court may be pleased to a Temporary Injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession of petitioners schedule mentioned property pending disposal of the suit.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.Mir.Riasath Ali Khan, Advocate for the Petitioner/plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:- ..Cont.2. : 2 :
DOCKET ORDER
Heard counsel for petitioner perused the petition, affidavit and documents filed with the petition. The documents i.e., original passport of plaintiff, death card,marriage certificate, police complaint, electricity payment bill, reports, and the declaration of the Hiba prima facie show it is possession of the property. At the same time R1,R2 as son of her husband from his first marriage. Hence at this stage I hold that both parties have to be directed to maintain States Quo as an today till 13/12/2019. Meanwhile Issue urgent notice to respondent No.1 to 3. For compliance of U/o.39 R 3(a) 2 days time call on 13/12/2019.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 22nd day of November, 2019.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY
All that premises land admeasuing about 400 Sq Yards with building bearing GHMC No. 8- 2-674/D, Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, T.S.
North : Neighbour’s Property.
South : Road.,
East : Neighbour’s Property.
West : Neighbour’s Property.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Dated this the, 07th Day of November, 2019.
PRESENT: Sri.D.Ravindra Sharma, XXVI Additional Chief Judge, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge.
AS. No.5 of 2010
Between:
Smt. Greeshma Agarwal ..Appellants/Third party.
AND
1. Smt. Syeda Yousufunnisa
2. Smt. Syeda Sabiha Begum
3. Sri.Mirza Zulfizar Ali Khan
4. Smt. Salabat Begum
5. Sri. Mirza Kazim Ali Khan
6. Sri. Mirza Mazhar Ali Khan
7. Sri Mirza Askar Ali Khan
8. Sri. Mirza Mustafa Ali Khan
9. Sri. Mirza Zaki Ali Khan.
10. Smt. Vazeera Begum.
11. Sri. Mirza Hasan Ali Khan
12. Smt. Raheemunnisa Begum.
13. Tahira Begum,died as per L.Rs. No.s 18-21.
14. Smt. Amina Begum.
15. Sri. Mirza Mohd. Ali Khan.
16. Sri. Mirza Abbas Hussain Khan.
17. Sri. Laxmi Rao, died.
18. Sri. Mir Sarfaraz Hussain.
19. Sri. Mir Askari Hussain.
20. Smt Nikhat Fathima
21. Sri Mir. Amanath Hussain.
. Respondents/Petitioners/L.Rs of Defendant No.2
Claim:-This is an appeal suit against the judgment and decree dt.5-11-2007 passed in
IA.No.49/2007 in OS.No.84/1967 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad.
..Cont.2. : 2 :
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.Shyam S.Agrawal, Advocate counsel for petitioners/appellants and of Sri. D.Jagadiswer Rao Advocate for the Respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered following:-
DOCKET ORDER
The Appellant and Respondents and are present. The Appellant counsel filed a memo for withdrawal of the appeal. The memo for withdrawing appeal is accepted. The
Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Written and pronounced by me in open the Court on this the 07th day of November, 2019.
FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 3rd day of September, 2019.
Present: Sri.Sambasiva Rao Naidu,
Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB-
Cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
ARBOP.No. 3002 OF 2017
Between: M/s.Water Health India Private Limited(WHIN).
.. Petitioner
And
ANARDE Foundation,
A Registered Public Charitable Trust. .. Respondent.
Claim:-This Petition is filed Under Section. 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying this court petitioner for rendering assistance to the Arbitral Tribunal in Case No. AA187/2014 in taking evidence of the following witnesses.
This Petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.P.Chandrasekhar, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri.M.Sultan Basha, Advocate for the Respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
The counsel for the petitioner filed a memo stating that he may be permitted to withdrawal the OP. Hence OP is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 3rd day of September, 2019.
Sri.D.Ravindra Sharma, For Sri. Sambasiva Rao Naidu, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge,
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 24th day of October, 2019.
PRESENT : Sri.D.Ravindra Sharma, XXVI Additional Chief Judge, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge.
MVOP.No. 533 OF 2017
Between: Burla Santhosh Kumar.
.. Petitioner
And
1. M/s. Himavani Educational Society.
2. B.Ram Reddy.
3. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., .. Respondents
Claim:-This Petition is filed for Compensation Under Section. 166 of M.V.ACT. 1988 and Rules 455 of A.P.M.V. Rule 1989 R/w. Amended ACT 54 of 1994.
This Petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.M.Venkataiah, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri.A.Lavan Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner counsel filed a memo by not pressing the petition and to withdraw the petition. The Respondent counsel mad no objection. Hence petition dismissed as withdrawn.
Written and pronounced by me in open the Court on this the 24th day of October, 2019.
FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 04th day of October, 2018.
PRESENT : Smt.A.V.L. Sathyavathi. XXV Additional Chief Judge.
MVOP.No. 2697 OF 2014
Between: Thotakuri Krishna.
.. Petitioner
And
1. Sandagalla Yadagiri.
2. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co., Ltd., Reptd.,
by its Manager, T.P.Cell, Hyderabad. ..Respondents
Claim:-This Petition is filed for Compensation Under Section. 166 of M.V.ACT. 1988 and Rules 475/1B of A.P.M.V. Rule 1989 R/w. Sec. 140 © of M.V.ACT, 1988.
This Petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri. Goda Venkateshwarlu, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri.A.Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
Cost not paid. No representation for petitioner during call work and even at 4.30 PM. This all shows that petitioner has no interest to prosecute the matter. Hence
OP is dismissed for default. No costs.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 4th day of October, 2018.
Sri. D.Ravindra Sharma, For Smt.A.V.L. Sathyavathi. FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 18th Day of October, 2019.
Present: Sri.Sambasiva Rao Naidu,
Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB-
Cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
SOP No. 2088 OF 2017
Between:
B.Lakshmi Reddy .. Petitioner
And
1. Maple Town Owners Society Reg.666/2010, Rep., by its President, S.Madhava Rao.
2. B.Shiva Shankar. .. Respondents
Claim:-This petition filed Under Section 23 of A.P Societies Registration Act, 2001.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.N.Pramod, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri.A.Kranthi Kumar Reddy, Advocate
for Respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the
court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
In view of orders in IA the petition is advanced, The Petitioner/Advocate not pressed the petition, petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Written and pronounced by me in open the Court on this the 18th day of October, 2019.
FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD
Dated, this the 28rd day of March, 2019.
PRESENT: Smt.K.Radha Devi, III Additional Chief Judge, I/c XXV Additional Chief Judge. City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IA. No.149 of 2019
IN
CMA. No.15 of 2019
Between:
N.Ramesh and others .. Appellants/Petitioners
AND
Vulpe Rakesh (V.Raju). .. Respondent/Defendant
Claim:-This CMA is filed U/o. 41 R 5 R/w.Sec.151 CPC praying this court may be pleased to grant the stay all further proceedings of order and decretal order in IA.403/18 in
OS.1364/18 Dt. 4-1-2019 on the filed file on IX Junior Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad till
disposal of main appeal
This CMA is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.Ravi Kumar Vora, Advocate counsel for appellant and of Sri.G.Bhasker Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
For counter Time extended till 15-04-2019. On memo is mentioned till than.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 28th day of March, 2019.
Sri. Sambasiva Rao Naidu, For Smt.K.Radha Devi, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge,
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 6th Day of September, 2019.
Present: Sri.Sambasiva Rao Naidu,
Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB-
Cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IA.No.164 of 2017 In OS No. 47 OF 2017
Between:
LAM Prabhakar. .. Petitioner/Plaintiff.
And
M/s.Rockwood Steel & others. .. Respondents/Defendants
Claim:-This petition filed Under Order 38 Rule 5, R/w. Sec. 151 of C.P.C praying this court may be pleased to direct the respondents/defendants to furnish security to the extent of the suit claim amount and in case of failure on the part of the respondents/defendants.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.M.Papa Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner/plaintiff and of S.K.Ahmed Shareef, Advocate for Defendant No.1 and of M/s.Rakesh Sanghi, Advocate for Defendant No.3 & 4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff U/o. 38 Rule 5 CPC for attachment of the petition schedule property before judgment in the main suit. After registering the suit, an exparte order was passed by this Court on 27-01-2017 by which an urgent notice was directed to the respondents to furnish security to the suit amount, within (48) hours from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which the petition schedule property shall be attached before judgment. It further appears that notice against the respondents 2, 4 to 7 were served.
...Cont.2.
: 2
Notice issued against the respondent No.1 returned unserved as respondent No.1 was not available in the given address or refused to receive the notice. On 14-2-2017 this
Court passed order of attachment of the petition schedule property in view of the failure of the respondents to furnish security for the suit amount. Subsequently, the petition was adjourned from time to time for inquiry. In the meanwhile, respondents 3 and 4/ defendants 3 and 4 have filed IA 961/2017 U/o. 7 Rule 11 CPC and sought for rejection of the plaint . On 14-8-2019 the counsel for defendants 3 and 4 made an objection for attachment against the petition schedule property on the ground that the petition U/or. 7
Rule 11 is pending before the Court and such attachment cannot be directed. Infact, an exparte attachment order was passed during 2017 and it is pending for all these years.
However, in view of the objection raised by counsel for defendants 3 and 4, I have heard both parties in the said application and today vide a separate order, I have dismissed IA 961/2017. Therefore, the respondents 3 and 4 i.e., defendants 3 and 4 shall file their counter in the present application. The counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has submitted that under the guise of petition U/.or. 7 Rule 11 CPC , the respondents are dodging the proceedings and they are trying to alienate the property. In fact, an attachment warrant was already issued but it shows there was a typographical mistake in the warrant, thereby, the petitioner/plaintiff filed another interlocutory application U/or. 6 Rule 17
CPC vide IA No.1911/2017 and the said petition was allowed. Therefore, issue amended warrant of attachment and this matter is posted to 20-09-2019 for inquiry.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 6th day of September, 2019.
FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 13th Day of August, 2019.
Present: Sri.Sambasiva Rao Naidu,
Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB-
Cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IA.No.164 of 2017 In OS No. 47 OF 2017
Between:
LAM Prabhakar. .. Petitioner/Plaintiff.
And
M/s.Rockwood Steel & others. .. Respondents/Defendants
Claim:-This petition filed Under Order 38 Rule 5, R/w. Sec. 151 of C.P.C praying this court may be pleased to direct the respondents/defendants to furnish security to the extent of the suit claim amount and in case of failure on the part of the respondents/defendants.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.M.Papa Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner/plaintiff and of S.K.Ahmed Shareef, Advocate for Defendant No.1 and of M/s.Rakesh Sanghi, Advocate for Defendant No.3 & 4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
IA.1911 /2017 is allowed. For carrying out and neat copy at request call on
14/8/2019.
Written and pronounced by me in open the Court on this the 13th day of August, 2019.
FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 20th day of September, 2019.
Present: Sri.Sambasiva Rao Naidu,
Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB-
Cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
SOP No. 12 OF 2019
Between: 1.Telangana Performing Artists Association.
2. Gunde Babu Rao. .. Petitioners.
And
Pothula Srinivas and others. .. Respondents.
Claim:-This petition filed Under Section. 23 of Telangana Society Registration Act.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.S.Vijay Prashanth, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Sri. G. Prashanth Rao, Advocate
for the Respondents the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court
made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
No representation for Respondent. Respondent set-exparte. For hearing
Petitioner call on 27-09-2019.
Written and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 20th day of September, 2019.
FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 20th day of August, 2019.
Present: Sri.Sambasiva Rao Naidu,
Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB-
Cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IA.No.816 of 2019 IN O.S No. 772 OF 2019
Between:
Smt. Lalita Devi Hisariya. .. Petitioner/Plaintiff
And
M/s. Sri Mouli Tiffins., rep., by its Partners.
1. M/s. Sagave Govinda Rao.
2. Shivaji. .. Respondents/Defendants.
Claim:-This Plaint is filed U/O. XV-A r/w Sec.151 of CPC with a prayer Pleased to direct the respondents/defendants to deposit the arrears of rents of Rs. 32,09,600/- and further direct to deposit the future rents @ Rs.2,00,600 per month till the disposal of the main case.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.K.Pavan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner/plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
In the result, the respondents are directed to deposit the arrears of rent @
Rs.2,00,600/- per month (Rs. Two lakh six hundred only) from August 2018 before this court on or before 31st August, 2019. The respondents shall deposit the monthly rent @
Rs.2,00,600/- from 1st September, 2019 before this court. The dispute with regard to arrears of rent from April 2018 to July 2018 will be decided in the main suit.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20th day of August, 2019.
FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 11th day of September, 2019.
Present: Sri.Sambasiva Rao Naidu,
Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB-
Cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
O.S No. 688 OF 2019
Between: Sri.P. Anil Kumar, S/o. Late P.Pundarikam, Aged: 57 years, Occ: Business, O/o. 101, 102,1st floor, Maruthi Estate,
Towers Street, S.D.Road, Secunderabad. .. Plaintiff.
And
1. M/s. Ahmed Industries.
2. M/s. Impex Copier Service.
3. Mr. Maqsood Hussain @ MaqsoodBhai. .. Defendants.
Claim:-This Plaint is filed U/s. 26 r/w Order VII, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. To grant a decree in favor of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 68,20,000/- against the defendants.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri..Nagesh Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
Plaintiff present and filed memo withdrawing the suit. Hence the suit is withdrawn and is dismissed as not pressed. No costs.
Written and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11th day of September, 2019.
FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri.Sambasiva Rao Naidu,
Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB-
Cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
ARBOP No. 21 OF 2019
Between:
Ms.Huda Hadi Ali. .. Petitioner
And
M/s.Kancharla Constructions Pvt Ltd Rep. by its Managing Director K. Prithvi Reddy &
Others. .. Respondents
Claim:-This petition is filed by petitioner, under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1995.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.K.V.Raghuveer, Advocate for the petitioner and upon hearing this court doth order as follows:-
Docket order dt.20-8-2019
Call on 26-08-2019with IA’s Interim Orders extended.
Docket order dt.26-8-2019
For hearing on petition Interim Orders extended till 28-8-2019. Docket order dt.28-8-2019
Call on 04-09-2019. Interim Orders extended. Docket order dt.04-9-2019
Call on 11-09-2019. Interim Orders extended.
Written and pronounced by me in the open Court, on the above dates.
FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri.Sambasiva Rao Naidu,
Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB-
Cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
ARBOP No. 23 OF 2019
Between:
Mrs.Khatija Begum & Another. .. Petitioners
And
M/s.Kancharla Constructions Pvt Ltd Rep. by its Managing Director K. Prithvi Reddy &
Others. .. Respondents
Claim:-This petition is filed by petitioner, under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1995.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.K.V.Raghuveer, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri.Mohan Rao, Advocate for the respondents 1 to 4 and upon hearing this court doth order as follows:-
Docket order dt.20-8-2019
Call on 26-08-2019 Interim Orders extended.
Docket order dt.26-8-2019
For hearing on petition Interim Orders extended till 28-8-2019. Docket order dt.28-8-2019
Call on 04-09-2019. Interim Orders extended. Docket order dt.04-9-2019
Respondents not ready Interim Orders extended till 11-09-2019.
Written and pronounced by me in the open Court, on the above dates.
FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri.Sambasiva Rao Naidu,
Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB-
Cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
ARBOP No. 22 OF 2019 Between: M/s.Hira Multi Constructions Ventures Pvt Ltd., Formerly known as M/s. Hira Management Consultants Pvt Ltd, Rep by its Managing Director.
.. Petitioner.
And
M/s.Kancharla Constructions Pvt Ltd Rep. by its Managing Director K. Prithvi Reddy &
Others. .. Respondents
Claim:-This petition is filed by petitioner, under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1995.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.K.V.Raghuveer, Advocate for the petitioner and upon hearing this court doth order as follows:-
Docket order dt.20-8-2019
Interim Orders extended till 26-08-2019. Call with IA on 26-08-2019 Docket order dt.26-8-2019
For hearing on petition Interim Orders extended till 28-8-2019. Docket order dt.28-8-2019
Call on 04-09-2019. Interim Orders extended. Docket order dt.04-9-2019
Call on 11-09-2019. Interim Orders extended.
Written and pronounced by me in the open Court, on the above dates.
FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 30th Day of October, 2019.
PRESENT: Sri.D.Ravindra Sharma, XXVI Additional Chief Judge, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge.
IA.No.857 of 2019 In ARBOP No. 72 OF 2018
Between:
Sri S.Uma Maheswara Rao and others. .. Petitioners/Petitioners
And
1.M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.,
2. Sri.T.Sundara Ramaiah.
3. A Chiranjeevi. .. Respondents/Respondents
Claim:-This petition filed Under Section 36 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying this court may be pleased to grant stay all further proceedings including execution of the Arbitration Award Dated.14.11.2017 passed in Arbiration Application No. 380 of 2017.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.P.Nagendra Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
On memo Interim Orders extended till. Call on 26/11/2019.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 30th day of October, 2019.
FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 2nd day of June, 2017.
PRESENT : Sri. V.Srinivasa Anjaneya Murthy, Presiding Officer A.P. State Wakf Tribunal, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge.
O.S No. 249 OF 2017
Between: Smt. Corina Lazarus.
.. Plaintiff.
And
Md.Mustafa Ali Taher and others. ..Defendants.
Claim:-This Plaint is filed U/s. 26 r/w Order VII, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. For the relief of specific performance of oral agreement of sale in respect of suit schedule property.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.Mohd.Asif Amjad, Advocate for the plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
In IA notice of R1/D1 returned unserved with endorsement “died”. Hence for steps against D1. Sri.Mohd Wahed Ali Khan, Advocate filed vakalat in IA for R2/D2. For written statement of D2. Time extended till 03-07-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 2nd day of June, 2017.
Sri. Sambasiva Rao Naidu, Sri. V.Srinivasa Anjaneya Murthy, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 12th day of February, 2018.
PRESENT : Smt.A.V.L. Sathyavathi. XXV Additional Chief Judge.
O.S No. 249 OF 2017
Between: Smt. Corina Lazarus.
.. Plaintiff.
And
Md.Mustafa Ali Taher and others. ..Defendants.
Claim:-This Plaint is filed U/s. 26 r/w Order VII, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. For the relief of specific performance of oral agreement of sale in respect of suit schedule property.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.Mohd.Asif Amjad, Advocate for the plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
Steps not taken, Plaintiff called absent. No representation for plaintiff, during call work and even at 5 PM. Hence suit is dismissed against D1. For plaintiff evidence, call on 06-04-2018.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 12th day of February, 2018.
Sri. Sambasiva Rao Naidu, Smt.A.V.L. Sathyavathi. FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 3rd day of January, 2017.
PRESENT : Sri. V.Srinivasa Anjaneya Murthy,
Presiding Officer A.P. State Wakf Tribunal, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge.
O.S No. 251 OF 2016
Between: Shahrooq Tanweer.
.. Plaintiff.
And
Smt.Sayeeda Sitwat and others. ..Defendants.
Claim:-This Plaint is filed U/s. 26 r/w Order VII, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. As amended up to date, Suit for partition and Separate possession.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of N.Lakshman, Advocate for the plaintiff and of M/s. N.Chandra Shekar Advocate for the Defendant No.5,7,8,9 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
Docket order Dated: 03-01-2017
Written statement of D1 to 3 not filed, no representation, they are set exparte. Await summons of D2,D6 and D10. Call on 16-2-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 3rd day of January, 2017.
Sri. Sambasiva Rao Naidu, Sri. V.Srinivasa Anjaneya Murthy, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 13th day of July, 2018.
Present: Smt.A.V.L. Sathyavathi. XXV Additional Chief Judge,
O.S No. 251 OF 2016
Between: Shahrooq Tanweer.
.. Plaintiff.
And
Smt.Sayeeda Sitwat and others. ..Defendants.
Claim:-This Plaint is filed U/s. 26 r/w Order VII, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. As amended up to date, Suit for partition and Separate possession.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of N.Lakshman, Advocate for the plaintiff and of M/s. N.Chandra Shekar Advocate for the Defendant No.5,7,8,9 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
Docket order Dated: 13-07-2018
Proof of publication filed against defendant Nos. 2,6 and 10 called absent, No representation, They are set exparte. For hearing, call on 17-08-2018.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 13th day of July, 2018.
Sri. Sambasiva Rao Naidu, For Smt.A.V.L. Sathyavathi. XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 19th Day of November, 2019.
Present: Smt. B.Prathima, XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hydedrabad.
IA.No.575 of 2018 In OS No. 919 OF 2014
Between:
N.Subhadra @ N.Subhadramma. .. Petitioner/Plaintiff.
And
K.Bal Reddy and Others. .. Respondents/Defendants
Claim:-This petition filed Under Order 36 R & 2, R/w. Sec. 151 of C.P.C praying this court may be pleased to Restrain the respondent No.5/Defendant No.5 from changing the nature of land.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.R.Prabhakar, Advocate for the petitioner/plaintiff and of M/s.G.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate for Defendants 1to 3 & 5 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
Heard in part. For further hearing call on 16/12/2019, meanwhile on memo
Status Quo Order are extended till then.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19th day of November, 2019.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Dated this the, 30th Day of November, 2016
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge
AS. No.257 of 2016
Between:
Ehsan-ul-Haq and Another ..Petitioners/Appellants
AND
Mohammed Riaz ..Respondent/Respondent
Claim:-This is an appeal suit against the judgmentg and decree dt.29-9-2016 passed in
O.S.No.2856 of 2013 Dated: 29-9-2016 on the file of the XXII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.M.Basith Ali Yavar, Advocate counsel for petitioners/appellants and of Sri. Syed Altaf Mehdi, Advocate for the Respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered following:-
DOCKET ORDER
Costs not paid. No representation for appellant during the call work and even at 4.45 PM. It all shows that the appellant is not having any interest to prosecute the matter.
Hence this appeal suit is dismissed for default. No costs.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 30th day of November, 2016.
Sri. Sambasiva Rao Naidu, For P. Kasi Visweswara Rao FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 30th Day of August, 2019.
Present: Sri.Sambasiva Rao Naidu,
Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB-
Cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IA.No.857 of 2019 In ARBOP No. 72 OF 2018
Between:
Sri S.Uma Maheswara Rao and others. .. Petitioners/Petitioners
And
1.M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.,
2. Sri.T.Sundara Ramaiah.
3. A Chiranjeevi. .. Respondents/Respondents
Claim:-This petition filed Under Section 36 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying this court may be pleased to grant stay all further proceedings including execution of the Arbitration Award dt.14.11.2017.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.P.Nagendra Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
Counsel filed memo stating that the notice to respondent was sent through court. For counter call on 06/9/2019 till then stay granted.
Written and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 30th day of August, 2019.
FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 30th Day of August, 2019.
Present: Sri.Sambasiva Rao Naidu,
Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB-
Cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IA.No.857 of 2019 In ARBOP No. 72 OF 2018
Between:
Sri S.Uma Maheswara Rao and others. .. Petitioners/Petitioners
And
1.M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.,
2. Sri.T.Sundara Ramaiah.
3. A Chiranjeevi. .. Respondents/Respondents
Claim:-This petition filed Under Section 36 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying this court may be pleased to grant stay all further proceedings including execution of the Arbitration Award dt.14.11.2017.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.P.Nagendra Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
Counsel filed memo stating that the notice to respondent was sent through court. For counter call on 06/9/2019 till then stay granted.
Written and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 30th day of August, 2019.
FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 22nd Day of August, 2019.
Present: Sri.Sambasiva Rao Naidu,
Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB-
Cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
O.S No. 647 OF 2018
Between: Smt.M.Pushpa Latha, W/o.Dr. B.Ravi, Aged: 36 years, Occ: Medical Practitioner, R/o. H.No.3-4-738, Narayanaguda,Hyderabad
.. Plaintiff.
And
Smt. K.Saritha, W/o. Jairaj, D/o.K.Devaiah, Aged; 28 years, Occ: Nurse, R/o. H.No.8-3-228/678/1009/547, NSB Nagar, Yousufguda,
Hydedrabad. .. Defendant.
Claim:-This Plaint is filed U/s. 26 r/w Order VII, Rules 1 and 3 of CPC. The plaintiff prays pleased to direct the defendant to pay the suit claim of Rs. 25,00,000/-
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.Hari Hara Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
IA 844 of 2019 is allowed. Suit is advanced to today. Plaintiff not pressed the
suit. Suit is dismissed as not pressed. No costs.
Written and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 22nd day of August, 2019.
FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 18th Day of April, 2019.
Present: Sri.K.Pattabhi Rama Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge,
IA No. 557 OF 2019 in O.S No. 390 OF 2019
Between:
Ananthapur Parameshwar .. Petitioner/Plaintiff
And
Smt.A.Anitha. ...Respondent/Defendant
Claim:-This petition filed U/o. 39, Rule 1 and 2 R/w. Sec. 151 of CPC praying this court may be pleased to grant Ad-interim Injunction restraining the respondent, or any body claiming through or under her from interfering with peaceful posession of the petition schedule property.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.B.Dhananjaya, Advocate for the plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition U/o. 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/w Sec.151 CPC praying this Court to restrain the respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession possession of the petitioner over the suit schedule property. Over the suit schedule property. The recitals of the gift deed show that the possession of the suit property was delivered to the respondent, hence, it is not a fit case to grant ad interim injunction. Hence, issue urgent notice to the respondent through Court and speed post.
Call on 01-05-2019.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 18th day of April, 2019.
Sri. Sambasiva Rao Naidu, For Sri.D.Chiranjeevulu, XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 18th Day of April, 2019.
Present: Sri.K.Pattabhi Rama Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge,
IA No. 556 OF 2019 in O.S No. 390 OF 2019
Between:
Ananthapur Parameshwar .. Petitioner/Plaintiff
And
Smt.A.Anitha. ...Respondent/Defendant
Claim:-This petition filed U/o. 39, Rule 1 and 2 R/w. Sec. 151 of CPC praying this court may be pleased to grant Ad-interim Injunction restraining the respondent, or any body claiming through or under her from alienating or creating third party interest of the petition schedule property.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.B.Dhananjaya, Advocate for the plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition U/o. 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/w Sec.151 CPC praying this Court to restrain the respondent from
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 18th day of April, 2019.
Sri. Sambasiva Rao Naidu, For Sri.D.Chiranjeevulu, XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD.
Dated, This the 2nd day of June, 2017.
PRESENT : Sri. V.Srinivasa Anjaneya Murthy, Presiding Officer A.P. State Wakf Tribunal, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge.
PSROP.No. 909 of 2016
Between:
YMCAs of Greater Hyderabad ..Petitioner/ Petitioner
AND
YMCA of Greater Hyderabad Ad-hoc Committee Others. … Respondents/Respondent
Claim:-This petition filed Under section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001.
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri. Syed Altaf Mehdi,
Advocate counsel for petitioner/petitioner and of Sri. CH. Omer Nathan, Advocate counsel
for respondents/respondents and upon hearing both sides this Court doth order as
follows:
D O C K E T O R D E R
Call on 08-06-2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 2nd day of June, 2017.
Sri. Sambasiva Rao Naidu, For Sri.V.Srinivasa Anjaneya Murthy FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 26th Day of July, 2019.
Present: Sri.D.Chiranjeevulu. XXVI Additional Chief Judge, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge,
IA No. 790 OF 2019 in O.S No. 683 OF 2019
Between:
Smt. Kolla. Anitha and others. .. Petitioners/Plaintiffs
And
Smt. Gundaboina Chandramma and others. ...Respondents/Defendants
Claim:-This petition filed U/o. 39, Rule 1 and 2 R/w. Sec. 151 of CPC praying this court may be pleased to grant Ad-interim Injunction restraining the respondents, them from alienating the petition schedule properties to third parties and pending disposal of the main suit.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.K.V.Prasad Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
Heard the learned advocate for petitioners. Perused the record and the following documents 1) Certified copy of sale deed under Doc.No.167/2001 dated 25.01.2001 of S.R.Nagar SRO, Hyderabad, 2) Certified copy of Sale deed under
Doc.No.1105/1960 dated 21.09.1960 of Khairatabad SRO, Hyderabad, 3) Certified copy of
Sale Deed under Doc.No. 2405/1994 dated 27.08.1994 of Joint Sub-Registrar-1,
Hyderabad, 4) Death Certificate of late G. Lingamaiah Yadav dated 06.07.2019, 5)
Certified copy of Release Deed vide Doc.No.1595/2019 dated 27.05.2019, 6) Certified copy of Release Deed vide Doc.No.1596/2019 dated 27.05.2019, 7) Certified copy of Gift
Deed vide Doc.No.3314/2019, dt: 18.05.2019 of Joint Sub Registrar, Azampur, Hyderabad, ...Cont.2. : 2 :
8) Certified copy of Gift Deed vide Doc.No.1568/2019 dt: 23.05.2019 of S.R.Nagar, SRO,
Hyderabad, 9) Certified copy of Gift Deed Vide Doc.No.1597/2019 dt: 27.05.2019 of SR
Nagar, SRO, 10) Market Value certifciate in respect of A schedule property dated 15.06.2019, 11) Market value certificate in respect of B schedule property, 12) Market value certificate in respect of C schedule property dated 24.06.2019, 13) Market value certificate in respect of D schedule property dated 22.06.2019, 14) Copy of educational certificates of plaintiffs, 15) Copy of Aadhar Cards of plaintiffs filed along with the plaint.
In the circumstances stated in the petition affidavit of Smt. Gillela Sunitha, the 2nd plaintiff, issue urgent notices to all respondents and in the meanwhile the respondents
No.1 and 2 shall maintain status-quo as obtainable today i.e 26.07.2019 as regards the present unalienable status of the petition schedule “A” to “D” properties without creating any third party rights/interest till 09.08.2019. Call on 09.08.2019.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 26th day of July, 2019.
Sri. Sambasiva Rao Naidu, For Sri.D.Chiranjeevulu, XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 14th Day of November, 2018.
Present: Smt.A.V.L. Sathyavathi. XXV Additional Chief Judge,
E.P No. 217 of 2018
Between:-
M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt Ltd., .. Decree Holder.
And
M/s. Opal Flooring (P) Ltd and Others . Judgment Debtors
Claim: This is an Execution petition filed by the Decree Holder praying to Issue Warrants of arrest U/o. 21 Rule 37 and 38 CPC against the judgment debtors judgment Debtor 2.
This Execution Petition is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.R.Chakradhar, Advocate for the Dhr and upon hearing this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
Issue Rule 37 Notice to Jdr. No.2. Call on 04/01/2019.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 14th day of November, 2018.
Sri. Sambasiva Rao Naidu, For Smt.A.V.L. Sathyavathi. XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD.
Dated, This the 14th day of Nobember, 2018.
PRESENT : Sri. V.Srinivasa Anjaneya Murthy, Presiding Officer A.P. State Wakf Tribunal, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge.
IA.No. 154 of 2017 In O.S.No. 34 of 2017
Between:
Shri. R.Venkata Krishna ..Petitioner/ Plaintiff.
AND
Dr.Sandhya Ruben and Others ...Respondents/Defendants.
Claim:-This petition filed U/o. 39, Rule 1 and 2 of R/w. 151 CPC praying this court may be pleased to grant exparte Ad-interim injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants, their men,assigness, agents and persons claming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of
M/s.A.Purushotham Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
D O C K E T O R D E R
For counter as a last chance. Call on 05/07/2017.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13th day of June, 2017.
Sri. Sambasiva Rao Naidu, For Sri. V.Srinivasa Anjaneya Murthy, XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD.
Dated, This the 22nd day of September,2016.
PRESENT : Sri. P. Kasi Visweswara Rao, XXV Additional Chief Judge.
LA O.P. No.2387 of 2012 In IA.No. 2263 of 2014
Between: Sri. Ali Adil Mahamadi and Others..Claimants
AND
The Government of Telangana and Others ... Respondents
This petition is filed by the petitioner U/O 1 Rule 10 R/w Sec 151 of CPC praying the court pleased to implead the petitioners/Proposed Claimants as necessary parties in the LAOP No. 2387 of 2012 for claiming compensation of the acquired land admeasuring 656.61 Sq.yards forming part of premises No. 1-4-462, corresponding to to T.S.No. 16/Part Ward No.110 Block No.H, situated at Bholakpur/Bakaram Village, Musheerabad, Hydedrabad.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of
Sri.M.Dushyanth Reddy, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri.P.Shiva Kumar Dass, Advocate
for the Respondents No.1,2 & 3 and of Sri. M/s.H.Sudhakar Rao, Advocate for the
Respondent No.4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
D O C K E T O R D E R
Inspite of several opportunities petitioner called absent, Counsel not present and no representation, Counsel for respondents, report ready,
IA is dismissed for default. No costs.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 22nd day of
September, 2016.
Sri. Sambasiva Rao Naidu, For Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao, XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD.
Dated, This the 22nd day of September,2016.
PRESENT : Sri. P. Kasi Visweswara Rao, XXV Additional Chief Judge.
LA O.P. No.2387 of 2012 In IA.No. 2265 of 2014
Between: Sri. Ali Adil Mahamadi and Others..Claimants
AND
The Government of Telangana and Others ... Respondents
This petition is filed by the petitioner Under Rule 32 of CPC praying the court pleased to permit the G.P.A holer Sri.Syed Zahiruddin to represent the petitioner/claimant No.8 in the LAOP.2387/2012.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of
Sri.M.Dushyanth Reddy, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri.P.Shiva Kumar Dass, Advocate
for the Respondents No.1,2 & 3 and of Sri. M/s.H.Sudhakar Rao, Advocate for the
Respondent No.4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
D O C K E T O R D E R
Inspite of granting several opportunities, original GPA deed not filed, petitioner called absent. No representation counsel for respondent report ready, IA is dismissed for default, no costs.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 22th day of
September, 2016.
Sri. Sambasiva Rao Naidu, For Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao,
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD.
Dated, This the 01st day of August, 2019.
PRESENT : Sri. Sambasiva Rao Naidu,
Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB-
Cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IA.No. 575 of 2018 In O.S.No. 919 of 2014
Between:
N.Subhadra @ N.Subhadramma ..Petitioner/ Plaintiff.
AND
K.Bal Reddy and Others ...Respondents/Defendants.
Claim:-This petition filed U/o. 39, Rule 1 and 2 of R/w. 151 CPC praying this court may be pleased to Restrain the respondent /defendant No.5 to grant temporary injunction from changing the nature of the land.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of
M/s.R.Prabhakar, Advocate for the plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
D O C K E T O R D E R
For hearing the respondent counsel, call on 03/09/2019. On memo Interim orders extended till then.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 1st day of August, 2019.
FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD.
Dated, This the 13th day of June,2017.
PRESENT : Sri. V.Srinivasa Anjaneya Murthy, Presiding Officer A.P. State Wakf Tribunal, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge.
IA.No. 154 of 2017 In O.S.No. 34 of 2017
Between:
Shri. R.Venkata Krishna ..Petitioner/ Plaintiff.
AND
Dr.Sandhya Ruben and Others ...Respondents/Defendants.
Claim:-This petition filed U/o. 39, Rule 1 and 2 of R/w. 151 CPC praying this court may be pleased to grant exparte Ad-interim injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants, their men,assigness, agents and persons claming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of
M/s.A.Purushotham Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
D O C K E T O R D E R
For counter as a last chance. Call on 05/07/2017.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 13th day of June, 2017.
Sri. Sambasiva Rao Naidu, For Sri. V.Srinivasa Anjaneya Murthy, XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD.
PRESENT : Sri. D.Chiranjeevulu. Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao, XXVI Additional Chief Judge, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge,
O.S. No. 34 of 2017 In IA.No. 154 of 2017
Between:
Sri. R.Venkata Krishna ..Petitioner/ Plaintiff.
AND
Dr.Sandhya Ruben and Others ...Respondents/Defendants.
Claim:-This petition filed U/o. 39, Rule 1 and 2 of R/w. 151 CPC praying this court may be pleased to grant exparte Ad-interim injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants, their men,assigness, agents and persons claming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of
M/s.A.Purushotham Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER DT: 25/01/2019
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The case of the petitioner is that his father has purchased vacant site of 380 sq.
yards, obtained permission to construct residential building therein, he constructed house in the suit schedule property. His father has executed registered settlement deed, dated:
18.11.2010, settling the suit schedule property in his favour, as he spent huge money towards family necessities and for marriages of his four sisters. The petitioner’s name has been recorded in voters list, election identity card, Aadhaar card, showingl his possession over the suit schedule property and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. He obtained loan of Rs.10 lakhs from one V. Rama and mortgaged the suit schedule property in her favour by executing registered mortgage deed vide document
No. 269/2007, towards his family needs. The grievance of the petitioner is that though respondent No1 has executed relinquishment deed on 03.10.2015, relinquishing her right over the suit schedule property, respondent No.1 and her men including respondent No.2 came to the suit schedule property on 18.01.2016 at 6.00 PM and tried to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, he filed the suit seeking the re
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 27th day of June, 2017.
Sri. Sambasiva Rao Naidu, For Sri. V.Srinivasa Anjaneya Murthy, XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD.
PRESENT : Sri. D.Chiranjeevulu. Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao, XXVI Additional Chief Judge, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge,
O.S. No. 34 of 2017 In IA.No. 154 of 2017
Between:
Sri. R.Venkata Krishna ..Petitioner/ Plaintiff.
AND
Dr.Sandhya Ruben and Others ...Respondents/Defendants.
This petition is filed by the petitioner U/O 1 Rule 10 R/w Sec 151 of CPC praying the court pleased to implead the petitionrs/Proposed Claimants as necessary parties in the LAOP No. 2387 of 2012 for claiming compensation of the acquired land admeasuring 656.61 Sq.yards forming part of premises No. 1-4-462, corresponding to to T.S.No. 16/Part Ward No.110 Block No.H, situated at Bholakpur/Bakaram Village, Musheerabad, Hydedrabad.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of
Sri.M.Dushyanth Reddy, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri.P.Shiva Kumar Dass, Advocate
for the Respondent No.1,2 & 3 and of Sri. M/s.H.Sudhakar Rao, Advocate for the
Respondent No.4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
D O C K E T O R D E R
Inspite of several opportunities petitioner called absent, Counsel not present and no representation, Counsel for respondents, report ready,
IA is dismissed for default. No costs.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 22nd day of
September, 2016.
For Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Typed by Typist: Compared by CMO:
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD.
Dated, This the 22nd day of September,2016.
PRESENT : Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao, XXV Additional Chief Judge.
LA O.P. No.2387 of 2012 In IA.No. 2263 of 2014
Between: Sri. Ali Adil Mahamadi and Others..Claimants
AND
The Government of Telangana and Others ... Respondents
This petition is filed by the petitioner U/O 1 Rule 10 R/w Sec 151 of CPC praying the court pleased to implead the petitionrs/Proposed Claimants as necessary parties in the LAOP No. 2387 of 2012 for claiming compensation of the acquired land admeasuring 656.61 Sq.yards forming part of premises No. 1-4-462, corresponding to to T.S.No. 16/Part Ward No.110 Block No.H, situated at Bholakpur/Bakaram Village, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of
Sri.M.Dushyanth Reddy, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri.P.Shiva Kumar Dass, Advocate
for the Respondent No.1,2 & 3 and of Sri. M/s.H.Sudhakar Rao, Advocate for the
Respondent No.4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
D O C K E T O R D E R
Inspite of several opportunities petitioner called absent, Counsel not present and no representation, Counsel for respondents, report ready,
IA is dismissed for default. No costs.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 22nd day of September, 2016.
Sri. Sambasiva Rao Naidu, For Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao, XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD.
Dated, This the 22nd day of September,2016.
PRESENT : Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao, XXV Additional Chief Judge.
LA O.P. No.2387 of 2012 In IA.No. 2265 of 2014
Between:
Sri. Ali Adil Mahamadi and Others..Claimants
AND
The Government of Telangana and Others ... Respondents
This petition is filed by the petitioner Under Rule 32 of CPC praying the court pleased to permit the G.P.A holer Sri.Syed Zahiruddin to represent the petitioner/claimant No.8 in the LAOP.2387/2012.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of
Sri.M.Dushyanth Reddy, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri.P.Shiva Kumar Dass, Advocate
for the Respondent No.1,2 & 3 and of Sri. M/s.H.Sudhakar Rao, Advocate for the
Respondent No.4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
D O C K E T O R D E R
Inspite of granting several opportunities original GPA deed not filed, petitioner called absent, no representation counsel for respondent report ready, IA is dismissed for default, no costs.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 22nd day of September, 2016.
Sri. Sambasiva Rao Naidu, For Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao, XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD.
Dated, This the 22nd day of September,2016.
PRESENT : Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao, XXV Additional Chief Judge.
LA O.P. No.2387 of 2012 In IA.No. 2264 of 2014
Between:
Sri. Ali Adil Mahamadi and Others..Claimants
AND
The Government of Telangana and Others ... Respondents
This petition is filed by the petitioner Under Rule 32 of CPC praying the court pleased to permit the G.P.A holer Sri.Imtiaz Ahmed Khan to represent the petitioners/claimants No.1 to 5 in the LAOP.2387/2012.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of
Sri.M.Dushyanth Reddy, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri.P.Shiva Kumar Dass, Advocate
for the Respondent No.1,2 & 3 and of Sri. M/s.H.Sudhakar Rao, Advocate for the
Respondent No.4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
D O C K E T O R D E R
Inspite of several opportunities original GPA deed not filed. No representation.
IA is dismissed for default, no costs.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 22nd day of September, 2016.
Sri. Sambasiva Rao Naidu, For Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao, XXV Additional Chief Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD.
PRESENT : Sri. D.Chiranjeevulu. For Smt.A.V.L. Sathyavathi. XXVI Additional Chief Judge, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge,
O.S No. 529 OF 2017
Between:
Dr.M.V.G. Rao, S/o. Pattabhi Ramaiah. .. Petitioner/Plaintiff.
AND
Mr.Shaikh Mohammed Rafi,S/o. Bapatla Sattar Sahab. .Respondent/Defendant.
Claim:-This petition filed Uner Order 7 Rule 11 R/w. Sec. 26 of CPC praying this court may be pleased to vacate the suit schedule property and to direct the defendant to pay arrears of the rent and maintenance.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.P.Ravi Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri.N.Rama Rao, Advocate for the Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
Docket order dt.26/10/2017.
Mr.N. Rama Rao filed vakalat for defendant, at request for written statement, call on 21-12-2017.
Docket order dt.09/04/2018.
No representation on eitherside. For hearing on issues call on 10-09-2018.
Docket order dt.10/09/2018.
Draft issues filed by plaintiff, for hearing learned counsel for defendant, call on 29-11-2018.
Docket order dt.29/11/2018.
No representation on eitherside, However call on 04-01-2019.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the above dates.
For Smt.A.V.L. Sathyavathi. FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 08th Day of March, 2018.
PRESENT : Sri. D.Chiranjeevulu. For Ch. Ramesh Babu. XXVI Additional Chief Judge, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge,
O.S No. 529 OF 2017
Between:
Dr.M.V.G. Rao, S/o. Pattabhi Ramaiah. .. Petitioner/Plaintiff.
AND
Mr.Shaikh Mohammed Rafi,S/o. Bapatla Sattar Sahab. … Respondent/Defendant.
Claim:-This petition filed Uner Order 7 Rule 11 R/w. Sec. 26 of CPC praying this court may be pleased to vacate the suit schedule property and to direct the defendant to pay arrears of the rent and maintenance.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.P.Ravi Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri.N.Rama Rao, Advocate for the Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
Docket order dt.08/03/2018.
Written statement filed for settlement Under Section 89 of CPC if any call on 09-04-2018.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 8th day of March, 2018.
For Ch. Ramesh Babu. FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD.
PRESENT : Sri. D.CHIRANJEEVULU XXVI Additional Chief Judge, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge,
Dated, this the 12th Day of June, 2019.
IA No. 681 OF 2019 in O.S No. 544 OF 2019
Between:
Savitri @ Savitri Hiralal.
.. Petitioner/Plaintiff.
AND
Jeetesh Agarwal. … Respondent/Defendant.
Claim:-This petition filed U/o. 39, Rule 1 and 2 of R/w. 151 CPC praying this court may be pleased to grant a temporary injunction, restraining the respondent from alienating or creating any charge in petition schedule properly.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of
M/s.M.Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
O R D E R
This is a petition filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Sec. 151 CPC for relief of temporary injunction.
Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner. Perused the record including the list of documents filed along with the plaint viz 1) Certified copy of the Sale deed of the plaintiff Doc.No.3322 of 1974, 2) Certified copy of the GPA Doc.No.2334/2019 and 3)
Certified copy of the Market value certificate dt: 7.06.2019.
.. Cont.2.
: 2 :
The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that it is a case of fraud and cheating played by her son/the respondent/defendant herein on his mother, aged 72 years, a pensioner suffering from old age related aliments and unable to move and the learned advocate for petitioner further submits that under the guise of obtaining death certificate of his father the respondent played fraud on the petitioner cheated her and obtained GPA in respect of the petition schedule property which is purchased by the petitioner under a registered sale deed.
In the circumstances, issue urgent notice to respondent through court, R.P, courier and in the meanwhile the respondent shall maintain status-quo as obtainable today as regards the present unalienable status of petition schedule property without creating any third party rights/interests till 27-06-2019. Call on 27.06.2019.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 27th day of June, 2019.
FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Typed by typist Compared by CMO
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT : Sri. D.CHIRANJEEVULU XXVI Additional Chief Judge, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge,
Dated, this the 11th Day of July, 2019.
IA No. 767 OF 2019 in O.S No. 627 OF 2019
Between: Andhra Chemical Supplies.
.. Petitioner/Plaintiff.
AND
Pranjal Bio (OPC) Private Limited. … Respondent/Defendant.
Claim:-This petition filed U/o. 39, Rule 1 and 2 of R/w. 151 CPC praying this court may be pleased to grant an ex-parte Ad-interim Injunction restraining the respondents.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Mr.Hemant Daswani, Advocate for the plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
O R D E R
Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner, perused the record and the copies of the following documents i.e., Original power of attorney, Master Data Records,
Valid Registration Certificate, Invoice evidencing sale of veterinary apparatus, Certificate issued by Chartered Accountant and digital copy of Video being circulated by the defendant.
In the circumstances issue urgent notice to respondent. Call on 19/07/2019.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 11th day of July, 2019.
FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Typed by typist Compared by CMO
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD.
PRESENT : Sri. D.CHIRANJEEVULU XXVI Additional Chief Judge, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge,
Dated, this the 9th Day of July, 2019.
IA No. 599 OF 2019 in O.S No. 486 OF 2019
Between: G.A. Uday Kumar.
.. Petitioner/Plaintiff.
AND
The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary (Department Posts) & Others. … Respondents/Defendants.
Claim:-This petition filed U/o. 39, Rule 1 and 2 of R/w. 151 CPC praying this court may be pleased to restrain the defendant No.3 from disbursing amount laying 1). Rs. 8,38,463/- standing to the credit of Postal Savings Bank Account No. 7781054068, 2). Rs.6,00,000/- standing to the credit of Postal Term deposit (MIS) in Account No. 7781112214, & 3, Rs. 6,00,000/- standing to the credit of Postal Term Deposit (MIS) in A.No.7781112215, of Late G.V. Anantha Padmanabham Naidu, to the respondents/defendants 4 to 6 pending the disposal of the suit.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.M.Ravindranath Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
O R D E R
Sri. P. Narayana, Advocate filed vakalat for Respondent No.1 to Respondent
No.3. For filing counters of Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.6 On memo Interim
Orders extended till 26/08/2019.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 9th day of July, 2019.
FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Typed by typist Compared by CMO
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT : Sri.K.Pattabhi Rama Rao XXIV Additional Chief Judge, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge,
IA No. 476 OF 2019 in O.S No. 330 OF 2019
Between:
A.D.Vishal, S/o.Dayanand, .. Petitioner/Plaintiff.
AND
A.L.Dayanand and others. … Respondent/Defendants.
Claim:-This petition filed U/o. 39, Rule 1 and 2 , R/w. Sec. 151 of CPC praying this court may be pleased to grant Ad-interim Injunction restraining the respondents, their henchmen, agents, servants or any person or persons claiming through or under them from intereferering with the peaceful physical possession over the petition schedule property pending disposal of the suit.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.D.Ramesh, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri.M/s.Abu Akram Advocate for the Defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
Docket order dt.01/04/2019.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner, I consider it appropriate to issue notice to respondents before considering granting of any relief, Issue urgent notice to the respondents and call on 15/04/2019.
Docket order dt.15/04/2019.
Await notice. Call on 26/04/2019.
Docket order dt.26/04/2019.
R1 to R5 called absent. No representation Heard R1 to R5 are set exparty Sri
Abu Akram for filed for R6 to R9 posted for counters of R6 to R9 call on 01-05-2019.
Docket order dt.01/05/2019.
Counter filed by R6 to R9. Heard both sides. For orders call on 03/05/2019.
...Cont..2. : 2 :
Docket order dt.03/05/2019.
Order could not be dictated due to pressure of work. Hence adjourned to 03/06/2019.
Docket order dt.03/06/2019.
Orders could not be dictated due to pressure of work. Hence adjourned to 25/06/2019.
Docket order dt.25/06/2019.
Due to training programme for the P.O and staff of Commercial Court my self and Steno are engaged on training, and hence posted to 28/06/2019 for orders.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the above dates.
For XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT : Sri. D.CHIRANJEEVULU XXVI Additional Chief Judge, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge,
Dated, this the 19th Day of June, 2019.
IA No. 704 OF 2019 in O.S No. 562 OF 2019
Between: Rize Software Solutions Private Limited, Registered Office at 8-2-293/82/1/286, 3rd Floor, Plot No. 286/A, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director, Potluri Rajasekhar, S/o. P. Krishna Murthy,
Aged: 44 years. .. Petitioner/Plaintiff.
AND
1. Smt. Mannava Srideepika, W/o.M.Sharath Babu, Aged: 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 8-2-684/11/12 & III/4, Durga Temple Lane, Bhavani Nagar, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034.
2. Sri.C. Srinivas, S/o.C.Hanumantha Rao, Aged: 44 years, Occ: Business R/o. Plot No. 361, Road No. 80, Jubilee Hills - 500033. … Respondent/Defendants.
Claim:-This petition filed U/o. 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC praying this court may be pleased to grant Ad-interim Injunction restraining the respondents, from interfering with petitioner business in suit schedule property.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.E.Phani Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
O R D E R
Heard. Perused the record and the following documents filed along with the plaint: Copy of Lease Deed dated: 01/08/2011, Emails to 2nd defendant dated 02/011/2017, 27/02/2018, 13/03/2018, 20/03/2018 23/11/2018, 11/12/2018 and 19/12/2019, Power Bill, copies of TDS Certificates dated: 07/12/2018, 02/03/2017 and 18/02/2016, Copy of Certificate of Incorporation, Resolution, Payment of Rental Details for the years 2014-19 and Recent Rental Payment details and in the circumstances stated in paras-2 to 7 of Petition-Affidavit of Petitioner P. Rajasekhar, the Managing Director of petitioners company, ..Cont.2.
: 2 :
issue urgent notice to respondents and in the meanwhile the respondents shall maintain status-quo as obtainable today regarding the amenities provided to the suit schedule property for smooth running of petitioners business in the petition schedule property without disrupting the amenities in any manner till 28/06/2019. Call on 28/06/2019.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19th day of June, 2019.
FACXXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD
Dated, this the 3rd day of December, 2018.
PRESENT: Smt,A.V.L. Sathyavathi, XXV Additional Chief Judge.
CMA. No.35 of 2016
Between: Rev.G. Joshi Babu, S/o.G. George, Aged : 57 years,Parish Pastor, Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church (AELC), R/o. H.No.6-1-68,
Saifabad, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. .. Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff
AND
1. The Central Guntur Synod, Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church, Brodipet, Guntur, rep.by its Bishop and Preseident.
2. Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church, Rep. by its Moderator Bishop, Post Box No. 205, Guntur- 522002.
3. Rev. D.Yesuratnam, Parish Pastor, Lutheran Church,
Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. .. Respondents/Defendants
Claim:-This CMA is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order/decree
dated:7/4/2016 passed in IA.No.60/2016 in O.S.No.461/16 on the file of the V Junior Civil
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
This CMA is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.K.Rama Subba Rao, Advocate counsel for appellant and of Sri.V.Srinivas, Advocate for the Respondent 1 and 2 and of Sri.N.Chandra Mouli counsel for R3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
O R D E R
Costs not paid. No representation for appellant during call work & even at 4.55
P.M. This all shows that appellant has not interest to prosecute the appeal. Hence appeal is dismissed for default. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 04th day of December, 2019.
For XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD
Dated, this the 15th day of April, 2019
PRESENT: Sri.K.Pattabhi Rama Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge
MEMO SR. No. 11333 of 2018 IN O.P. No. 81 of 2013
Between:-
Srimanthula Anuradha .. Petitioner
AND
Dronavalli Kutumba Rao and Others. .. Respondents.
Claim:-This memo filed by the petition/claimant has filed for seeking for withdrawal of the petition against respondent No.4.
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri. S.Chandraiah, Advocate for the counsel for petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
O R D E R
The petitioner/claimant has filed this memo seeking for withdrawal of the petition against respondent No.4. The memo is in the form of the affidavit of the petitioner. In the memo it is stated that the court has ordered imp-leading of respondent
No.4 and accordingly the amendment was carried out. However, it is stated that since the claim under section 163A of the M.V. Act are incorporated by the amendment brought to the Act in the year, 1994, once the negligence is not certain it is for the petitioner to plead and prove in the inquiry that vehicle of respondent No.1 was used in the accident. It is stated that the insurer in this case is a Government of India Company (Oriental Insurance
Company) still insurer wants to assail the intention of the parliament and trying to avoid the liability. It is stated that the petitioner can file the petition against the owner or the insurer of the vehicle and it is further stated that the deceased was sitting in the rear side of the car, therefore he cannot be considered as a contributor to the accident or tort- feasor. In the memo the applicant has cited few provisions of law and few judgments.
..Cont.2. : 2 :
A reply statement was filed to the memo by respondent No.2. It is stated that the deceased was proceeding in the car belonging to respondent No.4 at the time of accident and the driver of the said car was negligent resulting in the accident. It is further stated that respondent No.2 has filed IA.No.1236/2017 to implead the owner of the vehicle for better adjudication and after amendment the petitioner cannot seek for withdrawal. It is further stated that if imp-leading of respondent No.4 is to be impugned, the petitioner has to file a revision against the orders passed by the Court in
IA.No.1236/2017 and no prejudice would be caused if respondent No.4 is made as a party
either to respondent No.4 or to the petitioner.
Heard both sides.
It is noticed that as per the orders in IA.No.1236/2017 dated 17.09.2018 this court has imp-leaded respondent No.4 and now the petitioner wants to withdraw the petition against respondent No.4. Though the counsel for the petition has argued that it is for the petitioner to decide as against whom she has to proceed to claim compensation, the Court after considering the facts and circumstances came to an opinion that respondent No.4 is a proper party and therefore, respondent No.4 was impleaded. Once respondent No.4 was impleaded by the order of the Court, without challenging the said order, the petition cannot withdraw the petition against respondent No.4. Further as rightly contended by the counsel for respondent No.2, no prejudice would be caused either to respondent no.4 or to the petitioner if respondent No.4 is continued as a party to the petition. Moreover, respondent No.4 is a proper party to the litigation and his presence in the litigation would make the Court to adjudicate the dispute effectively.
Added to it the petitioner has filed the memo on which no orders can be passed. The memo is to be filed before the Court to intimate to the Court to for seeking of any formal and non adjudicatory orders. The Court cannot grant any relief on a memo filed by any party. Having considered all the facts and circumstances, I reject this memo.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 15th day of April, 2019.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD
Dated, this the 9th day of April, 2019
PRESENT: Sri.K.Pattabhi Rama Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge
I.A. No. 514 of 2018 IN O.P. No. 2631 of 2016
Between:-
Kosuri Saraswathi & Another. .. Petitioners
AND
Govindaraju Vijay & 2 Others. .. Respondents.
Claim:-This petition filed by the petitioner Under Order 23 Rule 21 of CPC praying this court to kindly grant permission to withdraw the suit MVOP. 2631/2016 as not pressed.
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri. M.Venkatiah, Advocate for the counsel for petitioners and Sri. G. Ravi Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for the counsel
for the Respondent No.1 and Sri. C. Mahander Reddy, Advocate for the counsel for
Respondent No.3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
The petitioner is represented with a petition to condone the delay. Delay condoned perused the petition and counsel for contesting respondent has endorsed no objection. It is noticed that on condition petition is pending on the file of some other counsel. In view of the facts stated in the affidavit of petitioner. The petition can be permitted to withdraw the petitioner and petition is MVOP 2631 of 2018 shall be dismissed with costs.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 9th day of April 2019.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD
Dated, this the 8th day of March, 2019
PRESENT: Sri.K.Pattabhi Rama Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge
I.A. No. 279/2019 IN
O.S. No. 809/2017
Between:-
1. Roger Hessing, S/o.Robin Hessing, Aged: 48 years, Occ: Business,
2. Elvis Hessing, S/o. Robin Hessing, Aged: 39 years, Occ: Service, Currently R/o. R47A, Ezdan 30 Al Wakra, Doha, Qatar, P.P. 22550, Rep.by his G.P.A Holder, Roger Hessing, (Plaintiff No.1).
Both are permanent R/o. B-305, Phase-1, Belvedere Gardens,
Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad. .. Plaintiffs.
AND
1. M/s.Via Milano Hyderabad, Represented by Defendants No. 2 to 5, R/o. Plot No. 1259/A, 4th Floors, Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033.
2. Ajay Harinath, Partner, Major, M/s. Essence Hospitality, R/o. Plot No.1259/A,2nd, 3rd & 4th Floors, Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033. Also residing at 2nd Floor, Plot No. 91, Pavani Vantage, Syed Nagar Road, HUDA Heights, MLA Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana-500028.
3. Smt. Sanjeevitha, Partner, Major, M/s. Essence Hospitality, R/o. Plot No.1259/A,2nd, 3rd & 4th Floors, Road No.36, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad-500033. Also residing at 2nd Floor, Plot No. 91, Pavani Vantage, Syed Nagar Road, HUDA Heights, MLA Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana-500028.
4. Mr.Paolo Nonino, Partner Major, M/s. Via Milano Hyderabad, R/o. Plot No.1259/A, 4th Floors, Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033.
5. Karan Mor, Partner, Major, M/s. Via Milano Hyderabad, R/o. Plot No.1259/A, 4th Floors, Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033. Also residing at L-12, Ved Vihar, AWHO Colony, Trimulgherry,
Secunderabad, Telangana. .. Defendants.
Claim:-This petition filed by the petitioner Under Order 23 Rule (1) (I) of CPC R/w. Sec.
151 CPC praying this court to may be pleased to permit the petitioners to withdraw the main suit i.e., O.S.No. 809 of 2018.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of
M/s.P.V.Janani, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of M/s.N.V.Sumanth,Advocate for the defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
O R D E R
Heard the counsel for the petitioner. The affidavit is filed by the first plaintiff who is the GPA of the second plaintiff also on behalf of both of them. Plaintiff have filed the petition to withdraw the suit after recording the compromise. The suit is being withdraw unconditionally and without reserving any right. Therefore, the petition is allowed permitting the petitioners/plaintiff to withdraw the suit and the factum of compromise recorded. Petition is then allowed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 8th day of March 2019..
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD
Dated, this the 8th day of March, 2019
PRESENT: Sri.K.Pattabhi Rama Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge
I.A. No. 278/2019 IN
O.S. No. 808/2017
Between:-
1. Roger Hessing, S/o.Robin Hessing, Aged: 48 years, Occ: Business,
2. Elvis Hessing, S/o. Robin Hessing, Aged: 39 years, Occ: Service, Currently R/o. R47A, Ezdan 30 Al Wakra, Doha, Qatar, P.P. 22550, Rep.by his G.P.A Holder, Roger Hessing, (Plaintiff No.1).
Both are permanent R/o. B-305, Phase-1, Belvedere Gardens,
Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad. .. Plaintiffs.
AND
1. M/s. Essence Hospitality, Represented by Defendants No. 2 to 6, R/o. Plot No. 1259/A, 2nd, 3rd & 4th Floors, Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033.
2. Ajay Harinath, Partner, Major, M/s. Essence Hospitality, R/o. Plot No.1259/A,2nd, 3rd & 4th Floors, Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033. Also residing at 2nd Floor, Plot No. 91, Pavani Vantage, Syed Nagar Road, HUDA Heights, MLA Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana-500028.
3. Smt. Sanjeevitha, Partner, Major, M/s. Essence Hospitality, R/o. Plot No.1259/A,2nd, 3rd & 4th Floors, Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033. Also residing at 2nd Floor, Plot No. 91, Pavani Vantage, Syed Nagar Road, HUDA Heights, MLA Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana-500028.
4. Karan Mor, Partner, Major, M/s. Essence Hospitality, R/o. Plot No.1259/A,2nd, 3rd & 4th Floors, Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033. Also residing at 2nd Floor, Plot No. 91, Pavani Vantage, Syed Nagar Road, HUDA Heights, MLA Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana-500028.
Claim:-This petition filed by the petitioner Under Order 23 Rule (1) (I) of CPC R/w. Sec.
151 CPC praying this court to may be pleased to permit the petitioners to withdraw the main suit i.e., O.S.No. 808 of 2018.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of
M/s.P.V.Janani, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of M/s.N.V.Sumanth,Advocate for the defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
O R D E R
Heard the counsel for the petitioner. The affidavit is filed by the first plaintiff who is the GPA of the second plaintiff also on behalf of both of them. Plaintiff have filed the petition to withdraw the suit after recording the compromise. The suit is being withdraw unconditionally and without reserving any right. Therefore, the petition is allowed permitting the petitioners/plaintiff to withdraw the suit and the factum of compromise recorded. Petition is then allowed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 8th day of March 2019..
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
TUESDAY THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019
PRESENT: Sri, K.Pattabhi Rama Rao, XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad
MV O.P. No.2631/2016
Between:
Smt, K. Saraswathi, and another..Petitioners
AND
1. Sri, G.Vijay and others ... Respondents
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of MV Act 1996 praying the court to award a sum of Rs,30,00,000/- together with cost and interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization of compensation amount towards general and special damages against the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
B. Vijaysen Reddy, Advocate for petitioner and Sri M.S. Srinivas Iyengar, Advocate for
Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 set exparte and on perusal of the material record, this court passed the following.
D O C K E T O R D E R
Orders pronounced (Vide Separate Order). In the result, petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 7th day of
September, 2015.
FAC/ XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
TUESDAY THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015
PRESENT: SRI N. JAYA RAJ, B.Com., L.L.B.,
XXIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE
FAC: XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE
Arbtn. O.P. No.77/2015
Between: Circus Solar Systems Private Limited, Rep. by its Senior Legal Officer,
K.V. Ramana Murthy...Petitioner
AND
1. Alex Spectrum Radiation Power Private Limited Rep. by its M.D.
2. State Bank of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Industrial Finance Branch, Amrutha Hills,
Topaz Building, Hyderabad...Respondents
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of Arbitration Act 1996 praying the court to grant stay of encashment of petition schedule Bank Guarantee
No.13203 Dt.30-5-2012 for a sum of Rs.1,69,36,462/- pending solution of disputes.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
B. Vijaysen Reddy, Advocate for petitioner and Sri M.S. Srinivas Iyengar, Advocate for
Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 set exparte and on perusal of the material record, this court passed the following.
D O C K E T O R D E R
Orders not ready. Steno is engaged in for other duty. Call on 24-8-2015. Interim
Order Extended.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 11th day of August, 2015.
FAC: XXV Additional Chief, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
for
TUESDAY THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015
PRESENT: SRI N. JAYA RAJ, B.Com., L.L.B.,
XXIV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE
FAC: XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE
Arbtn. O.P. No.3041/2014
Between: Indu Projects Limited Rep. by its Senior Legal Officer,
K.V. Ramana Murthy..Petitioner
AND
1. Alex Astral Power Private Limited Rep. by its M.D.
2. Photon Energy Systems Limited, Rep. by its M.D.
3. State Bank of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Industrial Finance Branch,
Amrutha Hills, Topaz Building, Hyderabad...Respondents
This petition is filed by the petitioner praying the court to grant stay of encashment of petition schedule Bank Guarantee for No.13200 Dt.30-5-2012 for a sum of
Rs.5,65,65,000/- and Bank Guarantee No.13202 Dt.30-5-2012 for a sum of
Rs.3,69,55,800/- pending Resolution of disputes.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
B. Vijaysen Reddy, Advocate for petitioner and Sri M.S. Srinivas Iyengar, Advocate for
Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3 set exparte and on hearing the counsels and on perusal of the material record, this court passed the following.
D O C K E T O R D E R
Orders not ready. Steno is engaged in other duty. Call on 24-8-2015.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 11th day of August, 2015.
for FAC: XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. for for for for
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
FRIDAY THE 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge
Arbtn. O.P. No.1641/2015
Between:
T.R. Venkatesh Aiyer..Petitioner
AND
M/s. Gharonda Builders and Developers Represented by its Managing Partner
Sunil J. Sachdev and 6 others..Respondents
Claim:-This petition is filed by the petitioner U/Sec.9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation
Act, 1996 praying this court to pass an order of interim measure of protection in the nature of direction to the respondents to furnish security to the extent of
Rs.3,12,00,000/-, which is the amounts due from the respondents in respect of the subject matter of Arbitration and in the event of the failure of the respondents to furnish the same, the petition schedule properties which are more particularly described in the schedule annexed to the petition, be attached or in the alternative pass an order of interim measure of protection in the nature of permanent injunction be granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents, restraining the respondents their heirs, representatives, agents, servants, nominees, assigns, transferees, etc., from creating third party rights or alienating the petition schedule properties in any manner whatsoever, including by way of execution of documents of sale, mortgage, lease, gift, exchange or otherwise, costs of the petition be awarded and any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled to may also be granted.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
Sunil B. Ganu, Advocate, counsel for petitioner and Sri Sharad Sanghi, Advocate, counsel
for Respondent No.1 and 2 and Sri Gandham Durga Bose, Advocate, counsel for
Respondent Nos.3 to 7 and upon hearing both sides this court doth order as follows:
D O C K E T O R D E R
Sri Sharad Sanghi filed vakalat for R1 and 2 in the place of Sri Gandham Durga
Bose. Memo filed and Interim Order extended till 11-3-2016. For filing counters. Call on 11-3-2016.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 26th day of February, 2016.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Monday, the 12th day of April, 2016
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge P.S.R.O.P. No.521/2011
Between:
Andhra Pradesh Cycling Association and another..Petitioner
AND
P. Malla Reddy and 3 others..Respondents
Claim:-This petition is filed by the petitioner Under Section 23 of Societies
Registration Act, 2003 praying this court to declare the Election of the petitioner No.2 and other members to the petitioner No.1 Association in pursuance of the elections dated 28-11-2010 as legal and valid, declare the election alleged to have been held on 21-11- 2010 whereby the Respondents and others are said to have been elected as Office
Bearers of petitioner No.1 as illegal, null and void, grant perpetual injunction restraining the respondents and other alleged office bearers said to have been got elected on 21-11- 2010 from interfering with the activities of the petitioner No.1 Association and costs of the suit be awarded.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
S. Rahul Dev, Advocate, counsel for petitioner and Sri A. Ushi Reddy, Advocate, counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and upon hearing both sides this court doth order as follows:
D O C K E T O R D E R
Counsel for R1 to R4 submits that he has filed memo stating that the matter has become infructuous. Counsel for petitioners submit that the court cannot decide basing on memo whether the matter has become infructuous and the petitioner will adduce evidence in the matter for proper adjudication of the matter. In view of this submission, no orders are necessary on memo and petitioner to adduce evidence.
For filing evidence of petitioner. Call on 26-4-2016.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 12th day of April, 2016.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE MACT CUM XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Monday the 22th day of February, 2016
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao, XXV Additional Chief Judge
I.A.339/2016 IN M.V.O.P.1866/2012
Between:
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited..Petitioner/R2
AND
B. Bhumika and 2 others.. Respondents/Petitioner/R1 & R3
Claim:-This petition is filed Under Section 170 (b) of M.V. Act, 1988 R/W Section 151 of
CPC praying the court to permit petitioner/respondent No.2 to contest the above OP by taking all the defenses which are available to the respondent No.2 herein and respondent
No.1 in the main case.
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri S. Venkatesh Gupta,
Advocate, counsel for petitioner/respondent No.2, and Sri P. Rama Krishna Reddy,
Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1/petitioner, respondent No.2/Respondent No.1 remained exparte and Sri S. Srinivas Rao, Advocate, counsel for respondent
No.3/respondent No.3 and upon hearing both the counsel this court doth order as follows:
D O C K E T O R D E R
Heard both sides. I.A. is allowed. No costs.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 22th day of February, 2016.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Monday the 8th day of April, 2019
PRESENT: Sri K. PATTABHI RAMA RAO XXV Additional Chief Judge
I.A.1477/2018 IN M.V.O.P.2846/2014
Between:
The Bajaj Allianz G I C Ltd Rep.by its Assistant Manager Legal Office at 4th Floor, North East Plaza, Erramanjil X Roads,Hyderabad …. Petitioner
AND
1. G.Kishtaiah S/o Late Bhoomaiah, Aged 54 Yrs,Occ:Labour,Presently Nil R/o MIG-435,III Phase, KPHB Colony,Kukatpally, Hydedrabad ….Respondent
Claim:-This petition is filed Under Order XVI Rule 12 R/W Sec.151 of CPC praying the court to Issue summons to Authorised Person from SERP (Society for Elimination of Rural
Poverty) 5-10-192,4th Floor, Hermitage Office Complex,Huda Building,Hill Fort
Road,Nampally,Hyderabad -500004, to bring and give evidence on inputs were made in the software in regard to the ID No. of person, with disability: 1521006001070108 issued from Area Hospital,Kondapur of Gorekatela Kishtaiah,S/o Late Bhoomaiah.
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri, M. Venkateshwarlu, Advocate, counsel for petitioner/respondent/R2 and Sri Hari Mohan Reddy, Advocate, counsel for respondent /R1, and upon hearing both the counsel this court doth order as follows:
D O C K E T O R D E R
This is a petition filed by petitioner/respondent No. 2 /insurance comp[any to summons authorized person from society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (for short SERP) to bring and give evidence regarding the disability of person by name Gorekatela Kistaiah
S/o Late Bhoomaiah with ID.No.1520116001701018 issued by Area Hospital,Kondapur, who is claim petitioner in the main O.P.2846/2014, In the affidavit filed in support of the petition the Assistant Manager of the petitioner/insurance company has stated that as respondent
No,.1/claim petitioner has examined Medical Officer who has deposed that the disability suffered by respondent No.1/claim petitioner has examined Medical Officer who has deposed that the disability suffered by respondent No,1/Claim petitioner herein is 48 percent and during cross examination the above said Medical Officer, who is PW2 has stated that he gave his opinion basing on the inputs which are with the SERP and in the software maintained by the said society. Now the petitioner/respondent No.2/insurance company seeks for summoning authorized person from the said society to produce the inputs relating to the claim petitioner by giving his identity number. Respondent No.1/claim petitioner has filed counter denying all the avernments and it is stated that Ex A7 which is a disability certificate is a public document and it was issued by the Medical Board of Area
Hospital, Kondapur and PW1 Dr. Madhusudhan is also a member of the Medical Board and he has issued Ex A7 and there is no necessity of summoning for the inputs from SERP .It is further stated that SERP is not party to the proceedings and it is in no way concerned to the case and only to waste the time of court, this petition is filed with mala fide intention,
Heard the counsel or respondent No.1/claim petitioner. The counsel for petitioner/respondent No.2 was not present despite conditional order and therefore, the matter is being disposed on merits. The petition is filed to summon a person who is said to have been maintaining the date relating to the disability of the persons with injuries. The petitioner has not stated as to in what capacity SERP has been maintaining the date and there is no whisper regarding the authenticity of the said date. It may be true that during cross examination PW2 might have stated that the inputs regarding the disability would be available with the SERP and only on that ground it is not proper to summon authorized person from society for Elimination of Rural Pverty to produce the date. As the date may be containing several other things, which may be of personal details of the claim petitioner and if all the details are summoned, his right to privacy would be breached. Further respondent No.1/claim petitioner has adduced the evidence regarding disability through
PW2 and it is for the Court to decide whether the documents is genuine and further the court can on its own assess the disability notwithstanding with th e opinion given by PW2 and the opinion expressed in Ex A7 .The counsel for the petitioner did not advance his arguments the petition is being disposed basin on the material on record. After considering the material placed before the court and the evidence of the Assistant Manager of the petitioner/respondent No.2 insurance company, I am of the opinion that there are no justified reason to summon authorized person from SERP to produce any documents. For the above reasons, this petition is to be dismissed. In the result, the petition is dismissed, no costs.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 8th day of April, 2019.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE MACT CUM XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYDERABAD
Monday, the 27th day of July, 2015
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao, For Sri N. Jaya Raj, XXIV Addl. Chief Judge, FAC: XXV Additional Chief Judge
I.A.1528/2015 IN M.V.O.P.1613/2012
Between:
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,..Petitioner/R3
AND
K. Shobavathi and 3 others .. Respondents/Petitioners 1 & 2/R1 & R2
Claim:-This petition is filed Under Section 170 B of M.V. Act praying the court to permit the petitioner/respondent No.3 to contest the claim on the grounds available to the owner including to challenge the quantum in the above matter.
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri G. Srinivasa Charyulu,
Advocate, counsel for petitioner/respondent No.3 and Sri K. Jagathpal Reddy, Advocate, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2/petitioners No.1 & 2, Respondent No.3 & 4/respondent
No.1 & 2 are remained exparte and upon hearing both sides this court doth order as follows:
D O C K E T O R D E R
The counsel for respondent endorsed no objection on petition. Heard. Petition allowed.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 27th day of July, 2015.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT TRIBUNAL CUM XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE :
CITY CIVIL COURT : AT HYDERABAD
Friday, the 28th day of August, 2015
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao, For Sri N. Jaya Raj, XXIV Additional Chief Judge, FAC: XXV Additional Chief Judge
I.A. No.1490/2015 in M.V..O.P.1386/2009
Between:
Ch. Vijaya Laxmi..Petitioner
AND
M/s. Super Agree Seeds Private Limited and 6 others ..Respondents
Claim:-This petition is filed by the petitioner Under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC praying this court to amend the claim petition as the proposed amendments cited in the affidavit in page No.1 and page No.4 of the affidavit and pass such other order.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
A.R. Samudrala, Advocate, counsel for petitioner/petitioner and Sri N. Satyanarayana
Swamy, Advocate, counsel for petitioner Nos.2 and 3/petitioner Nos.2 and 3, Sri T.V.S.
Prabhakar Rao, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri P. Ramachandra Reddy,
Advocate, Counsel for Respondent No.2 and upon hearing both sides this court doth order as follows:
D O C K E T O R D E R
Counter filed on behalf of R2. Heard the counsel for petitioner argued that the petitioner counsel has not drafted the claim petition properly and made typographical mistakes. That the age, income and avocation and negligence of the crime vehicle not described and that petitioners husband and daughter were not impleaded as parties. That in the cause title the first respondent mentioned as M/s. Agree Seeds Private Limited instead of M.S.P.L. Limited, Baldola Enclave, Ahheraj, Baldola Road, Hospet, Karnataka
State and prayed to permit the proposed amendment in the claim petition as mentioned in affidavit in page No.1 and page No.4. The counsel for R2 endorsed no objection. Upon hearing learned counsel for both sides and perusing the record, it can be said that there are reasonable grounds to allow the petition. Hence petition is allowed.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28th day of August, 2015.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao,
XXV Additional Chief Judge. I.A.No. 1162/2015
IN
P.S.R.O.P.952/2015
Between:
Transfiguration Lutheran Church,Ramanthapur,Hyderabad,
Rep,by its Rev.G,Jeevan Kumar,S/o.Late,Jaya Rao,Christian,Aged 36 years,
R/o.12-9-12/3. Lalaguda,Secunderabad. ..Petitioner
AND
The Executive Council of Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church
Rep,by its Moderator Bishop Kollabathula Frederic Paradesi Babu
S/o.Suraya Rao,aged 55 years,R/o Church compound,Guntur. and 3 others
.. Respondents
Claim:-This petition is filed by the petitioner U/Order39 Rules 1 & 2 of C.P.C. R/W Sec 151 of C.P.C. praying the court to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondent
No.1 herein from ratifying the convention/election of the office bearers elected to the
AELC,during the 78th Annual Convention,Central Guntur Synod which took place on 13/04/2015 & 14/05/2015 in which disqualified members i.e.Respondent No. 3 & 4 who were elected by tampering the ballot papers highhandedly, pending disposal of the O.P.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri,
P.Rambabu, Advocate, counsel for petitioner and Sri,A.Muralidhar Reddy, Advocate, counsel for respondent Nos.1, and Sri,N.Lakshmidhar, Advocate, Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and upon hearing both sides this court doth order as follows: D O C K E T O R D E R Dt. 15.02.2016
B.N.R. For enquiry. I.O. Extended till 15.03.2016.For enquiry Call on 15-03- 2016. D O C K E T O R D E R Dt. 15.03.2016
B.N.R. enqui call on 09-04-2016
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 15th day of Marchl, 2016.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Tuesday, the 1st day of December, 2015
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge I.A. No.1932/2015 IN
O.S. No.496/2011
Between:
Azeemunnisa and 3 others..Petitioners/Plaintiffs
AND
Syed Azeemuddin Ahmad..Respondent/Defendants
Claim:-This suit is filed by the petitioners Under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC praying this court to appoint an advocate commissioner under his supervision we may be permitted to carry on the reconstruction of the damage portion of the kitchen, W.C. Bathroom pipe line and drainage line in premises bearing No.16-3-802, admeasuring 276 Sq. yards equivalent to 220 Sq. meters situated at Chanchalguda, Hyderabad.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
Mohammed Shujauddin, Advocate, counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs and Sri A.V. Srinivasa
Rao, Advocate, counsel for respondent/defendant and upon hearing both sides this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
This is an application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 26 Rule 9
CPC seeking the court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of supervising the reconstruction of the damaged portion of kitchen, WC bathroom pipelines and drainage pipe line in suit schedule A property.
I have gone through the affidavit filed by petitioner No.1 and counter filed by the respondent.
Heard both sides.
Now the point that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief of appointing an Advocate Commissioner, as prayed for?
The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed I.A. No.1931/2015 seeking the relief of permitting them to reconstruct the damaged portion of kitchen, WC bathroom pipe lines, drainage pipe line in plaint A schedule property, and the said application was contested by respondent/defendant and it is allowed by order dated 1-12-2015.
The petitioners have filed this application seeking to appoint an Advocate
Commissioner for the purpose of supervising the reconstruction of the said damaged portion of kitchen, WC bathroom pipe lines and drainage pipe line, etc. As the petitioners are permitted to carry out the said reconstruction work and as they are apprehending that the respondent/defendant may cause obstruction them, it is desirable to appoint an
Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of supervising the reconstruction work.
Therefore, I hold on the point that the petitioners are entitled for appointment of
Advocate Commissioner, as prayed for.
In the result, the application is allowed, but without costs, appointing Sri M.A.
Samad, Advocate as commissioner, for the purpose of supervising the reconstruction of the damaged portion of kitchen, WC bathroom pipe lines and drainage pipe line in suit schedule A property.
Advocate Commissioner is directed to collect work memos from both parties
before executing the warrant and to fix the dates for reconstruction of the said damaged
portion.
Advocate Commissioner's fee is fixed tentatively at Rs.3,000/-, payable to him directly by the petitioners/plaintiffs.
For filing report. Call on 8-12-2015.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 1st day of December, 2015.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
TUESDAY, the 27th day of November, 2018
PRESENT: Sri K. Pattabhi Rama Rao For Smt,A.V.L. Sathyavathi XXV Additional Chief Judge
A.S. No.146/2017
Between:
Mohd Athique Ahmed ..Appellant
AND
S, Ramu Murthy..Respondents
Claim:-This suit is filed by the appellant/defendant Under section 96 of CPC within time against the Judgment and Decree passed by the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad dated 7-4-2017 praying this court to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Honble I senior Civil Judge, CCC,Hyd in OS.520/2016
dt 7-4-2017 by dismissing the said and award costs through out and to pass such other
orders as this Honourable court deems fit and proper .
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.
Nagesh Advocate, counsel for appellant/defendants, and upon hearing both sides this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
Costs not paid. No representation for appellant during call work and even at 4- 50 PM. This all shows that appellant has no interest to prosecute the appeal. Hence appeal is dismissed for default, No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 27th day of November 2018.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Thursday, the 13th day of April, 2016
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge
O.S. No.850/2013
Between:
G. Raveen Kumar and another..Plaintiffs
AND
G. Dayanand Reddy and another..Defendants
Claim:-This suit for damages and perpetual injunction, mandatory injunction filed
Under Order VII Rule 1 R/W Section 26 of CPC praying this court to pass a Judgment and
Decree against the D1 a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum towards the compensation amount of damages from the date of suit to till the date of realisation and costs, pass a Judgment and Decree for Mandatory injunction directing the
D1 to restore the original possession of A suit schedule property prior to the
Memorandum of Understanding dt.29-11-2010 by handing over the same i.e. all that portion of shop No.1, pass a Judgment and Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the D1 alienate the suit schedule property B & C till realisation of compensation amount for damages.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
Gangadhar Patil, counsel for plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, Sri S. Balchand, Advocate, counsel for defendant Nos.1 and 2 and upon hearing both sides this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
Four I.As. Allowed and documents received. For marking of documents and cross of PW.1. Call on 26-4-2016.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13th day of April, 2016.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Thursday, the 26th day of April, 2016
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge
O.S. No.850/2013
Between:
G. Raveen Kumar and another..Plaintiffs
AND
G. Dayanand Reddy and another..Defendants
Claim:-This suit for damages and perpetual injunction, mandatory injunction filed
Under Order VII Rule 1 R/W Section 26 of CPC praying this court to pass a Judgment and
Decree against the D1 a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum towards the compensation amount of damages from the date of suit to till the date of realisation and costs, pass a Judgment and Decree for Mandatory injunction directing the
D1 to restore the original possession of A suit schedule property prior to the
Memorandum of Understanding dt.29-11-2010 by handing over the same i.e. all that portion of shop No.1, pass a Judgment and Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the D1 alienate the suit schedule property B & C till realisation of compensation amount for damages.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
Gangadhar Patil, counsel for plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, Sri S. Balchand, Advocate, counsel for defendant Nos.1 and 2 and upon hearing both sides this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
PW.1 present. Counsel for defendant seeks time. For marking of documents and cross of PW.1. Call on 8-6-2016.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 26th day of April, 2016.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Thursday, the 5th day of February, 2016
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge
O.S. No.55/2012
Between:
The Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Ltd.,..Plaintiff
AND
M/s. Springfields Financial Services Ltd., and 4 others..Defendants
Claim:-This suit for cancellation of sale deed dt.9-7-1997 and Gift Deed dt.15-11-1999 executed by D3 in favour of D5 and for costs Under Section 26 R/W Order 7 Rules 1 to 6 of CPC praying this court to pass a Decree and Judgment in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendants, for an order for setting aside/cancel the Sale Deed dated 09-07- 1997 and a Gift Deed dated 15-11-1999 executed by 3rd Defendant in favour of the 5th
Defendant.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
A.H. Rama Krishna Rao, counsel for plaintiff, Sri M. Papa Reddy, Advocate, counsel for defendant Nos.2, Sri A. Venkatesh, Advocate, Counsel for Defendant No.3 and Sri K.
Lakshman, Advocate, counsel for Defendant No.5 and upon hearing both sides this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
Plaintiff is called absent. Counsel for plaintiff not present and there is no representation. The suit is dismissed for default, without costs.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 5th day of February, 2016.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Thursday, the 13th day of April, 2016
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge
I.A.2121/2015 IN
O.S. No.850/2013
Between:
G. Raveen Kumar and another..Petitioners/Plaintiffs
AND
G. Dayanand Reddy and another..Respondents/Defendants
Claim:-This petition filed by the petitioners Under Order 7 Rule 14(3) R/W Section 151 of CPC praying this court to receive the document as per list of documents which are filed along with this petition in the above suit.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
Gangadhar Patil, counsel for plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, Sri S. Balchand, Advocate, counsel for defendant Nos.1 and 2 and upon hearing both sides this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
This is an application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, under Order 7 Rule 17(3), R/W Section 151 CPc, seeking the court to receive the document filed along with the petition.
I have gone through the affidavit and counter.
Heard both sides.
Now the point that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioners have satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the document and whether they are entitled to the relief of receiving the said document, by the court, as prayed for?
The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the suit against defendant No.1 and 2, seeking the relief of damages, mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction.
Defendants are contesting the suit by filing written statement, issues were framed and the matter is coming up for trial. The plaintiffs have filed evidence affidavit of PW.1. They have also filed this application seeking to receive the documents by the court. It is mentioned in the affidavit of petitioner No.1 that the plaintiffs have collected certified copies of documents from Hon'ble High Court and III Junior Civil Judge Court, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad and those documents are necessary to prove their case. Though counter is filed no tenable ground is raised. As the suit is at the beginning of recording evidence of PW.1 and coming up for marking of documents, documents filed by the petitioners can be received, at this stage. Accordingly I hold on the point that the petitioners have satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the documents and they are entitled to the relief of receiving the document by the court.
In the result, the application is allowed, but without costs, receiving the documents, subject to proof and relevancy.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13th day of April, 2016.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Thursday, the 13th day of April, 2016
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge
I.A.2481/2014 IN
O.S. No.850/2013
Between:
G. Raveen Kumar and another..Petitioners/Plaintiffs
AND
G. Dayanand Reddy and another..Respondents/Defendants
Claim:-This petition filed by the petitioners Under Order 7 Rule 14(3) R/W Section 151 of CPC praying this court to receive the document as per list of documents in the above suit.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
Gangadhar Patil, counsel for plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, Sri S. Balchand, Advocate, counsel for defendant Nos.1 and 2 and upon hearing both sides this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
This is an application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, under Order 7 Rule 17(3), R/W Section 151 CPC, seeking the court to receive the documents filed along with the petition.
I have gone through the affidavit and counter.
Heard both sides.
Now the point that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioners have satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the documents and whether they are entitled to the relief of receiving the said document, by the court, as prayed for?
The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the suit against defendant No.1 and 2, seeking the relief of damages, mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction,
Defendants are contesting the suit by filing written statement, issues were framed and the matter is coming up for trial. The plaintiffs have filed evidence affidavit of PW.1. They have also filed this application seeking to receive the documents by the court. It is mentioned in the affidavit of petitioner No.1 that the original documents were available with his brother, who is residing at Tandur, they have obtained some documents from
GHMC under Right to Information Act recently and those documents are necessary to prove their case. Though counter is filed, no tenable ground is raised. As the suit is at the beginning of recording evidence of PW.1 and coming up for marking of documents, documents filed by the petitioners can be received, at this stage. Accordingly I hold on the point that the petitioners have satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the documents and they are entitled to the relief of receiving the document by the court.
In the result, the application is allowed, but without costs, receiving the documents, subject to proof and relevancy.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13th day of April, 2016.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Thursday, the 13th day of April, 2016
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge
I.A.2738/2014 IN
O.S. No.850/2013
Between:
G. Raveen Kumar and another..Petitioners/Plaintiffs
AND
G. Dayanand Reddy and another..Respondents/Defendants
Claim:-This petition filed by the petitioners Under Order 7 Rule 14(3) R/W Section 151 of CPC praying this court to receive the document as per list of documents in the above suit.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
Gangadhar Patil, counsel for plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, Sri S. Balchand, Advocate, counsel for defendant Nos.1 and 2 and upon hearing both sides this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
This is an application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, under Order 7 Rule 17(3), R/W Section 151 CPC, seeking the court to receive the document filed along with the petition.
I have gone through the affidavit and counter.
Heard both sides.
Now the point that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioners have satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the document and whether they are entitled to the relief of receiving the said document, by the court, as prayed for?
The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the suit against defendant No.1 and 2, seeking the relief of damages, mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction.
Defendants are contesting the suit by filing written statement, issues were framed and the matter is coming up for trial. The plaintiffs have filed evidence affidavit of PW.1. They have also filed this application seeking to receive the documents by the court. It is mentioned in the affidavit of petitioner No.1 that the plaintiffs have submitted an application under Right to Information Act to the Assistant City Planner, Circle-5, GHMC,
Hyderabad and obtained certified copy of the documents. It is also mentioned that they have obtained certified copies of documents in O.S. No.963/2013, immediately after coming to know about filing of the said suit and that those documents are necessary to prove their case. Though counter is filed no tenable ground is raised. As the suit is at the beginning of recording evidence of PW.1 and coming up for marking of documents, documents filed by the petitioners can be received, at this stage. Accordingly I hold on the point that the petitioners have satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the documents and they are entitled to the relief of receiving the document by the court.
In the result, the application is allowed, but without costs, receiving the documents, subject to proof and relevancy.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13th day of April, 2016.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Thursday, the 13th day of April, 2016
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge
I.A.244/2015 IN
O.S. No.850/2013
Between:
G. Raveen Kumar and another..Petitioners/Plaintiffs
AND
G. Dayanand Reddy and another..Respondents/Defendants
Claim:-This petition filed by the petitioners Under Order 7 Rule 14(3) R/W Section 151 of CPC praying this court to receive the document as per list of documents in the above suit.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
Gangadhar Patil, counsel for plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, Sri S. Balchand, Advocate, counsel for defendant Nos.1 and 2 and upon hearing both sides this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
This is an application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, under Order 7 Rule 17(3), R/W Section 151 CPC, seeking the court to receive the document filed along with the petition.
I have gone through the affidavit and counter.
Heard both sides.
Now the point that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioners have satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the document and whether they are entitled to the relief of receiving the said documents, by the court, as prayed for?
The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the suit against defendant No.1 and 2, seeking the relief of damages, mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction.
Defendants are contesting the suit by filing written statement, issues were framed and the matter is coming up for trial. The plaintiffs have filed evidence affidavit of PW.1. They have also filed this application seeking to receive the documents by the court. It is mentioned in the affidavit of petitioner No.1 that the plaintiffs have obtained copy of order from the Hon'ble High Court recently and the said document is necessary to prove their case. Though counter is filed no tenable ground is raised. As the suit is at the beginning of recording evidence of PW.1 and coming up for marking of documents, documents filed by the petitioners can be received, at this stage. Accordingly I hold on the point that the petitioners have satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the documents and they are entitled to the relief of receiving the document by the court.
In the result, the application is allowed, but without costs, receiving the documents, subject to proof and relevancy.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13th day of April, 2016.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Thursday, the 18th day of April, 2016
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge
O.S. No.227/2015
Between:
M/s. MSR India Limited..Plaintiff
AND
M/s. Impact Megals Limited and 3 others..Defendants
Claim:-This suit filed Under Order VII for permanent Injunction restraining infringement of Copy Right, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets/Confidential Information,
Malicious Falsehood, for damages, Rendition of Accounts of profits and delivery up praying this court to pass Judgment and Decree for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, its partners, its servants and agents, distributors, stockiest, representatives, officers or persons claiming through or under it from either directly or indirectly using this plaintiff proprietary invented Technology, Designs, Dies,
Trade Secrets/Know-how and manufacturing processes by defendants, award damages of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- against the defendants in favour of the plaintiff and pass a decree of damages as valued for the purposes of this suit and for purpose for loss of sales, reputation and good will of the plaintiff's trademarks caused by the activities of the defendants, an order directing the defendants to deliver to the plaintiff all infringing materials/printed matters/dies, advertising materials, any reference to plaintiff product and/or original materials, papers, designs that are related to the plaintiffs invented product, pending disposal of the suit, grant an order of injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, its partners, its servants and agents, distributors, franchisees, representatives, officers or persons claiming through or under it, from either directly or indirectly this plaintiff proprietary invented Technology, Designs, Dies, Trade
Secrets/Know-how and manufacturing processes by defendants and an order as to the cost of the proceedings.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
Ashok Ram Kumar, Advocate, counsel for plaintiff, Sri A.V.D. Narasimha Rao, Advocate, counsel for defendant Nos.1 & 3, and upon hearing both sides this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
Defendant No.4 called absent. Await summons of Defendant No.4. Call on 27- 4-2016.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18th day of April, 2016.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Thursday, the 3rd day of December, 2015
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge
I.A. No.703/2014 IN C.M.A. No.61/2010
Between:
Jyothi Textiles and 2 others..Petitioners/Appellants
AND
M/s. Manokamna Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd...Respondent/Respondent
Claim:-This petition filed by the petitioners Under Order 41 Rule 19 Section 151 of
CPC praying this court to restore the above appeal to its file for disposal on merits by setting aside the dismissal in default order dated 4-3-2014.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
Maniklal Yadav, Advocate, counsel for petitioners/appellants and the respondent is remained exparte and upon hearing both sides this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
Heard counsel for petitioner and perused the record. Sufficient cause is shown for non-appearance of petitioner on 4-3-2014.
In the result, the application is allowed setting aside the dismissal order dated 4-3-2014 and restoring the CMA to file.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 3rd day of December, 2015.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Wednesday, the 24th day of September, 2014
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao For Sri Sambasiva Rao Naidu, XXV Additional Chief Judge MEMO S.R. No. 4646 OF 2014
IN
O.S. No. 421 OF 2012
Between:
Bhavari Devi..Plaintiff
AND
M.D. Saleem..Defendant
Claim:-This memo filed by the plaintiff her self was examined as PW.1 praying this court to mark the Exhibits A1 to A15 on date 7-3-2014, recently she is suffered with “PROFOUND SENSORY NEURAL HEARING LOSS” with 80 dB and 90 dB in right and left ear respectively and is having severe speech discrimination. The certificate issued by the
Doctor is herewith filed for kind perusal and in these circumstances the chief examination of PW.1 may be eschewed and permit the other witnesses to adduce the evidence on behalf of plaintiff.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
K. Venu Madhav, Advocate, counsel for plaintiff and Sri M.A. Saleem, Advocate, counsel for defendant and upon hearing both sides this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
Orders pronounced in the open court.
This Memo has been filed by the counsel for plaintiff with a representation that the plaintiff whose chief affidavit has been filed as PW.1 is now not in a position to attend the court and she is suffering from “Profound Sensory Neural Hearing Loss” with 80db and 90db in right and left ear and is having severe speech discrimination” thereby the plaintiff do not want to proceed with the evidence of PW.1 and sought for permission to produce other witnesses to adduce evidence on behalf of the plaintiff.
O.S.421/2012 has been filed one Smt. Bharavi Devi W/o. Sri Babulal Jain, age 69
years, for perpetual injunction in respect of an immovable property. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, the plaintiff filed amendment petition and added reliefs namely, declaration of title, recovery of possession etc., from the defendants.
The defendant has appeared before the court and filed written statement disputing the claim of plaintiff. Issues have been settled on 05-03-2014 and chief affidavit of PW.1 has been filed before the court on 07-03-2014. PW.1 has appeared before the court and Exs.A1 to A15 are marked on her behalf.
Subsequently the learned counsel for the plaintiff brought to my notice that
PW.1 hails from Rajasthan and she cannot answer the questions put by the counsel either in English or in Hindi, PW.1 is an old lady, she is not able to understand the questions posed by the counsel for other side. Therefore with the consent of both the counsels I have appointed an advocate commissioner who is supposed to understand Rajasthani language who can prepare a report in English.
However the Commission could not be completed and counsel for defendant represented that the plaintiff did not pay the fees of the Commissioner. There is no progress and the matter has been adjourned from time to time till 04-07-2014.
In view of the age of the plaintiff being a senior citizen with a view to expidate the trial, I decided to record the evidence of PW.1 in the Court itself and I could locate an advocate who can translate the evidence of PW.1 into Telugu. Both the advocates reported no objection to record the evidence of PW.1 before the court. At that juncture the counsel for plaintiff represented that PW.1 became sick and she is not able to her and he want to eschew the evidence of PW.1 so that the can produce other witnesses on behalf of plaintiff.
The learned counsel for defendant vehemently opposed the memo on two grounds namely no orders can be passed on the Memo and he has disputed the averments of the Memo stating that if really PW.1 is unable to hear and speak she could not have marked Exs.A1 to A15 in the earlier occasion and there is no genuineness in the request of the plaintiff. The counsel for defendant sought for referring PW.1 to Medical
Board to verify whether she really sick and whether she is really unable to hear etc.
As I have already stated in the previous paragraphs this suit has been filed by an old lady who is not in a position to stand before the court in a proper way. She has been produced before the court with help of her relatives.
It is true earlier she is able to mark some documents, simply marking of documents may be done by way of gesture but now she is unable to hear. In such a case there is no meaning in asking her to attend the court and subject herself for cross examination. Even if she is asked to attend before the Medical Board no purpose would be served and it is nothing but subjecting the old lady to further harassment. As per Order 18 of CPC it is for the plaintiff to examine herself in the first instance and if she did not want to examine herself, she can examine other witnesses. It is for the plaintiff to prove her case by oral or documentary evidence and the defendant will have always an opportunity to test the evidence of plaintiff witnesses by way of cross examination. The purpose of examining a witness is to prove certain facts but it is not desirable to refer the plaintiff to Medical Board by keeping the old suit pending for a long time. If really plaintiff is not able to prove her case, it will be an advantage to the defendant. Therefore I see no reason to reject the request of the plaintiff.
Accordingly the evidence of PW.1 is eschewed and plaintiff is permitted to produce the other witnesses.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 24th day of
September, 2014.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Friday, the 28th day of August, 2015
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao For Sri N. Jaya Raj XXIV Additional Chief Judge, FAC: XXV Additional Chief Judge
I.A. No.964/2015 IN
O.S. No. 272/2015
Between:
M/s. Sree Aditya Hotels and Resorts..Plaintiff
AND
K. Dayakar Reddy..Defendant
Claim:-This petition filed by the petitioner Under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 R/W Sec.151 of
CPC praying this court to grant an interim injunction, in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff, restraining the respondent/defendant, his agents, servants or any other persons claiming through or under him from evicting the sub lessees from the schedule property which was obtained and sub leased by the plaintiff by virtue of lease deed dated 17-4-2012, illegally and forcibly without due process of law.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
S. Nagesh Reddy, Advocate, counsel for plaintiff and upon hearing the counsel this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
Await and Call on 22-9-2015. Interim Order extended.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28th day of August, 2015.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Friday, the 9th day of October, 2015
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge
I.A. No. 965/2015 IN
O.S. No. 272/2015
Between:
M/s. Sree Aditya Hotels and Resorts..Plaintiff
AND
K. Dayakar Reddy..Defendant
Claim:-This petition filed by the petitioner Under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 R/W Sec.151 of
CPC praying this court to grant a decree of perpetual injunction, in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff, by restraining the defendant, his agents, servants or any other persons claiming through or under him from interfering with the day to day of affairs of the sub lessees.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
S. Nagesh Reddy, Advocate, counsel for plaintiff and upon hearing the counsel this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
Interim Order extended till 12-11-2015. Issue fresh notice to respondent. Call on 12-11-2015.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 9th day of October, 2015.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Monday, the 14th day of December, 2015
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge
O.S. No. 272/2015
Between:
M/s. Sree Aditya Hotels and Resorts..Plaintiff
AND
K. Dayakar Reddy..Defendant
Claim:-This suit for perpetual injunction filed Under Section 26 R/W Order 7 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC praying this court to grant a decree of perpetual injunction, in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant, his agents, servants or any other persons claiming through or under him from evicting the sub lessees from the schedule property which was obtained and sub leased by the plaintiff by virtue of lease deed dated 17-04-2012 illegally and forcibly without due process of law, restraining the defendant, his agents, servants or any other persons claiming through or under him from interfering with the day to day of affairs of the sub lessees, to award costs.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
S. Nagesh Reddy, Advocate, counsel for plaintiff and upon hearing the counsel this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
Summons served on defendant. Defendant is called absent and there is no representation.
Counsel for plaintiff filed memo stating that the plaintiff is withdrawing the suit. Memo recorded. The suit is dismissed as not pressed, no costs.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 14th day of
December, 2015.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Monday, the 11th day of April, 2016
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge
I.A. No.698/2016 IN
O.S. No. 229/2016
Between:
S. Sheshachary..Petitioner/Plaintiff
AND
G. Chandulal..Respondent/Defendant
Claim:-
This petition filed Under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 R/W Section 151 of CPC praying this court to grant ad-interim injunction order to restraining the respondent and his men, agents, any other person claiming through or under them from transferring, alienating or change the nature of the petition schedule property pending disposal of the main suit.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
M/s. Damodar Mundra Associate, Advocate, counsel for petitioner/plaintiff and upon hearing the counsel this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and perused the record.
The case of the petitioner is that, respondent has borrowed a sum of Rs.20 lakhs from him on 12-8-2010, a sum of Rs.5 lakhs was given in cash and cheque bearing
No.154619 dated 12-8-2010 was issued for Rs.15 lakhs, the defendant has executed registered mortgage deed on the same day in respect of the suit schedule property, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. As the defendant failed to repay the said amount, the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 22- 3-2014, which was served on the defendant, the defendant approached the plaintiff and assured the he would pay the entire amount with interest. As the defendant did not repay the said amount, another legal notice dated 27-2-2016 was issued to the defendant and the same was returned unclaimed. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the said amount.
He filed this application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, stating that the respondent/defendant has been trying to alienate the suit schedule property without discharging the debt to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is seeking ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent, his men, from transferring, alienating or changing the nature of the suit schedule property, during the pendency of the suit.
The petitioner has filed registered mortgage deed, legal notices, link document
dated 14-9-2006, office copies of legal notices and encumbrance certificate relating to
the suit schedule property. From the pleadings and documents filed, it appears that the petitioner is having prima facie case and balance of convenience lies in his favour and this is a fit case for grant of ad-interim injunction.
In the above circumstances, issue ad interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from transferring, alienating or changing the nature of the suit schedule property, till further orders, subject to compliance of Order 39 Rule 3(a) CPC.
Call on 29-4-2016.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 11th day of April 2016.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Monday, the 11th day of April, 2016
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge
O.S. No. 742/2015
Between:
Maddi Laxmi Deeraj Reddy..Plaintiff
AND
M/s. Virtu Mobile Technologies (P) Ltd.,..Defendant
Claim:-This suit for specific performance filed Under Order 7 Rule 1 & 2 R/W Section 26 of CPC praying this court to execute register sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- as per agreement of sale dated 11-2- 2013 in respect of suit schedule property i.e. Flat bearing No.401, Fourth Floor, bearing
H.No.8-3-319/11, in Sy. No.126 and 127, with un-divided share of land 68.04 Sy. Yds (out of 567 Sq. yards) with respective built up area of 1800 Sft. In building known as “DOYEN
CHAMBERS” situated at Yellareddyguda, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and bounded by North:
Open to sky, South: Open to sky, East: Open to sky and West: Flat No.402, that in the event of defendant failed to execute register sale deed the court execute register sale deed in favour of plaintiff and deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the plaintiff, in the alternate, to direct the defendant to return a sum of Rs.65,00,000/- paid as advance sale consideration with 18% interest from the date of receipt to till the date of payment, that cost of the suit be awarded.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
E. Madhan Mohan Reddy, Advocate, counsel for plaintiff and Sri M. Raj Kumar, Advocate, counsel for defendant and upon hearing the both counsel this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
Both parties and both counsel present. Memo filed stating that the matter is compromised out of court with the intervention of elders and hence the suit may be dismissed as not pressed and without costs. Memo recorded. The suit is accordingly dismissed as not pressed, but without costs.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 11th day of April, 2016.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Tuesday, the 24th day of November, 2015
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge
I.A. No. 812/2014 IN
O.S. No. 343/2014
Between:
M/s. Sri Sairam Builders..Petitioner/Plaintiff
AND
G.B. John Wesley and another..Respondents/Defendants
Claim:-This petition filed by the petitioner Under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC R/W
Section 151 of CPC praying this court to grant an interim injunction, pending the main suit, restraining the respondent No.1, his agents, servants or any other persons claiming through or under him from changing the nature of the schedule property in any manner.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
S. Nagesh Reddy, Advocate, counsel for petitioner/plaintiff, Sri Ch. Shanmukha Rao,
Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.1 and respondent No.2/defendant
No.2 is remained exparte and upon hearing both the counsel this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
Both not ready. For enquiry. Memo filed and interim order extended till further orders. For enquiry. Call on 11-12-2015.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 24th day of
November, 2015.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Tuesday, the 24th day of November, 2015
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge
I.A. No. 813/2014 IN
O.S. No. 343/2014
Between:
M/s. Sri Sairam Builders..Petitioner/Plaintiff
AND
G.B. John Wesley and another..Respondents/Defendants
Claim:-This petition filed by the petitioner Under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC R/W
Section 151 of CPC praying this court to grant an interim injunction, pending the main suit, restraining the respondent No.1, his agents, servants or any other persons claiming through or under him from alienating or creating any third party rights over the schedule property in any manner.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
S. Nagesh Reddy, Advocate, counsel for petitioner/plaintiff, Sri Ch. Shanmukha Rao,
Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.1 and respondent No.2/defendant
No.2 is remained exparte and upon hearing both the counsel this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
Both not ready. For enquiry. Memo filed and interim order extended till further orders. For enquiry. Call on 11-12-2015.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 24th day of
November, 2015.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Tuesday, the 12th day of April, 2016
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao XXV Additional Chief Judge
I.A. No. 813/2016 IN
O.S. No. 1008/2013
Between:
Ahmed Hussain @ Khader Pasha..Petitioner/Plaintiff
AND
Mahmood Hussain @ Mohsin Pasha..Respondent/Defendant
Claim:-This petition filed by the petitioner Under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC R/W
Section 151 of CPC praying this court to record the compromise as per the terms of the compromise Memo and Decree.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
M/s. Javed Razack, Advocate, counsel for petitioner/plaintiff, Sri L. Hari Rao, Advocate, counsel for respondent/defendant and upon hearing both the counsel this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
Both parties and both counsel are present. The terms of compromise are read over and explained to both parties. They agreed that the terms are true and correct of their compromise. Terms of compromise are recorded.
I.A. is allowed. No costs.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 12th day of April, 2016.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Thursday, the 08th day of April, 2019
PRESENT: Sri K. Pattabhi Rama Rao For Smt,A.V.L. Sathyavathi XXV Additional Chief Judge I.A. No. 1477/2018 IN
O.S. No. 999/2014
Between:
The Bajaj Genral Insurance ..Petitioner/Plaintiff
AND
Bro. Y. John Subba Reddy and 4 others..Respondents/Defendants
Claim:-This petition is filed by the petitioners Under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/W
Section 151 of CPC praying this court to grant ad interim injunction restraining the respondents and his men, agents and also the persons claiming through them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property owned and possessed by the petitioner and pass all necessary orders for the said purpose.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
K.V. Bhanu Prasad, Advocate, counsel for petitioner/plaintiff and Sri K. Mohan Raj,
Advocate, counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4/defendant Nos.1, 2 & 4 and upon hearing both sides this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
Counter of R3 filed. For hearing. Call on 27-1-2015.
Now the counsel for petitioner expressed urgency and sought for disposal of the petition. He has further stated that the petition is pending since long time and all the respondents on record filed their counters as well as written statements also filed. Where as counsel for R1, R2, R4 and Respondent No.3 who is party in person filed counter stated that there is no such urgency. In fact I am in FAC till 26-1-2015 and only one working day is left for disposal. It seems both parties filed number of documents and counsel for petitioner states that already Hon'ble High Court passed certain orders in favour of petitioner. The learned counsel for R1, R2, R4 states that there is no such order in favour of the petitioner. Now it is 4.45 P.M. and it may not be possible to pass any orders on the basis of oral arguments advanced by the petitioner and R1, R2, R4. R3 claims that he is discharging duties on behalf of trust. The Regular Officer will assume charge on 27-1- 2015. Therefore I am not inclined to decide the petition with in this short period. The litigation is pending since a long time. It requires a detailed hearing and all the record need to be considered. However in view of the representation by petitioner that respondent are trying to transfer the properties etc., it requires a direction to both parties to maintain the same state which is existing as on date till 27-1-2015. Therefore this petition is adjourned to 27-1-2015 and the parties are directed to maintain status quo without dealing with the properties till 27-1-2015.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 22nd day of January, 2015.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Tuesday, the 31st day of March, 2015
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao For Sri Sambasiva Rao Naidu, XXV Additional Chief Judge
O.S. No. 317/2014
Between:
M/s. Symed Labs Limited..Plaintiff
AND
B. Venkata Reddy and 2 others..Defendants
This Suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.
Prabhakar Rao, Advocate, counsel for plaintiff, Sri Amarchand & Mangaldas, Advocate, counsel for defendant No.1 and Sri N. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate, counsel for
Defendant Nos.2 and 3 and upon hearing the both counsel this court doth order as follows:
FAIR ISSUES
The following issues are framed.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration, declaring the employment of D1 with D2 and D3 as illegal and contrary to the appointment order and public policy?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction restraining D2, D3 and their affiliates, sister concerns from employing and continuing the employment of
D1 in any capacity?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction restraining D1 from taking employment of D2, D3 or their affiliates and sister concerns?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages @ Rs.14,28,967/- from D1 as prayed for?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any damages/mesne profits towards the loss suffered by the plaintiff?
6. Whether the suit is not maintainable on the ground that the clause No.16 of appointment order is void as per Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act.
7. To what relief?
For list of witnesses 2 weeks. For trial. Call on 15-4-2015.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 31st day of March 2015.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Thursday, the 27th day of March, 2015
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao For Sri Sambasiva Rao Naidu, XXV Additional Chief Judge
I.A. No. 650/2015 IN
O.S. No. 163/2015
Between:
M/s. Sumit Marketing .. Petitioner/Plaintiff
AND
M/s. Era Infra Engineering Limited and 8 others.. Respondents/Defendants
Claim:-This petition is filed by the petitioners Under Order 38 Rules 5 & 6 R/W Section 151 of CPC praying this court to direct the defendants to deposit the suit amount or alternatively direct to furnish security equally to the suit claim i.e. Rs.18,33,005/- within in 48 hours and upon their failure to deposit or furnish the security on such order of attachment of movable properties lying in the premises of the respondent company office.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
Murlinarayan Bung, Advocate, counsel for petitioner/plaintiff and respondent/defendant
Nos.1, 2, 4 to 9 are set exparte and upon hearing both sides this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
Heard. Issue notice to respondent to furnish security by 7-4-2015. If they fail,
Issue conditional attachment.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 27th day of March, 2015.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Wednesday, the 16th day of September, 2015
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao For Sri N. Jaya Raj, XXIV Additional Chief Judge, FAC: XXV Additional Chief Judge
O.S. No. 613/2014
Between:
B. Premalatha and another..Plaintiff
AND
T. Venkatesh and 2 others..Defendant
Claim:-This suit for partition and separate possession filed Under Order VII Rule 1 R/W
Section 26 of CPC praying this court to pass preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled 1/5th share each in the schedule house property, award suit costs, pass final decree to deliver the separate possession to the plaintiffs in accordance with the preliminary decree.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri E.
Vishwa Prasad, Advocate, counsel for plaintiffs and upon hearing the both counsel this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
Memo filed by plaintiffs not pressing the suit. Heard. Suit is dismissed as not pressed, without costs.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 16th day of
September, 2015.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Saturday, the 19th day of July, 2014
PRESENT: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao For Sri Sambasiva Rao Naidu, XXV Additional Chief Judge
I.A. No. 2010/2014 IN
O.S. No. 205/2010
Between:
V. Ameenaiah and another .. Petitioners/Defendant No.1 & 2
AND
Vijay Kumar Agarwal and 2 others.. Respondents/Plaintiffs
Claim:-This petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants Under Order 9 Rule1 13
R/W Section 151 of CPC praying this court to set aside the exparte decree dated 2-6-2014 and to permit them to contest the suit on merits.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
K. Vijaysen Reddy, Advocate, counsel for petitioners/defendants and Sri N.B. Uday Kumar,
Advocate, counsel for respondents/plaintiffs and upon hearing both the counsel this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER DT.19-7-2014
Issue notice to respondent. Call on 5-9-2014.
Sd/-
XXV ACJ
DOCKET ORDER DT.21-8-2015
Presiding Officer is on transfer. Reposted to 28-9-2015.
Sd/-
C.A.O.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 21st day of August, 2015.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 18th APRIL 2019
PRESENT: SRI. CH. RAMESH BABU
XXIV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
FAC XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
Arb O.P. No.1270 of 2017 in
IA .No. 2000 of 2018
Between:
K. Venugopal and others.. Petitioners
AND
M/s Shriram City Union Finance Ltd ... Respondent
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri. V.
Venkata Srinivas Advocate counsel for petitioner and upon hearing both sides this
Court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
Time extended till 03-05-2019, on conditional order on petition.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of April, 2019.
FAC XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 09th APRIL 2019
PRESENT: Sri, K. Pattabhi Rama Rao,
XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
MVOP. No. 2631 OF 2016
Between:
Smt,K.Saraswathi & Others ... Petitioners
AND
Sri, G.Vijay & another … Respondents
Claim:-This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of MV Act 1996 praying the court to award a sum of Rs,30,00,000/- together with cost and interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization of compensation amount towards general and special damages against the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri
M.Venkatiah, Advocate for the counsel for Petitioners and Sri G.Ravi Chandra Sekhar ,
Advocate for the counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Sri, C.Mahander Reddy, Advocate for the counsel for Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.2 remained exparte and upon hearing both sides this Court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
Petition filed under Order 23 Rule 21 CPC in IA No.514 /18 represented. The petitioner is to withdraw this MVOP unconditionally. Petition is allowed and petitioner is permitted to withdraw the petition unconditionally and consequently their petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner shall pay costs to the contesting respondent. That the petition is dismissed with costs.
Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 09th day of
April, 2019.
FOR/ XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 29th JUNE 2017
PRESENT: SRI. V. SRINIVASA ANJANEYA MURTHY,
PRESIDING OFFICER A.P. STATE WAKF TRIBUNAL,
FAC XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
OS. No. 579 OF 2010
Between:
S. Pusapavathi and Others ... Plaintiff
AND
S. Krishna Rao and 2 Others … Defendants
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri N.
Ramanandam, Advocate for the for Plaintiff and Sri K. Sanjeeva Reddy Advocate, for
Defendant No. 1 and of Sri, E. Venkateshwarlu Adv, for Defendant No. 2 & 3 and this
Court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
Plaintiffs called absent, No representation even at 4-45PM,
Hence, suit is dismissed for default.
Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29tht day of June, 2017.
FAC XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 07th JUNE 2017
PRESENT: SRI. V. SRINIVASA ANJANEYA MURTHY,
PRESIDING OFFICER A.P. STATE WAKF TRIBUNAL,
FAC XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
MVOP. No. 824 OF 2014
Between:
N. Brunda & Others ... Petitioner/Claimant
AND
G. Thirupathi Rao & another … Respondents
Claim: This petition is filed under section 166 & 163-A of Motor
Vehicle Act 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules 1988 R/w 140 of
A.P.M.V. Act 1982 by granting a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the petitioners against the respondents by directing them to pay the said amount to the petitioners jointly and severally along with interest @24% p.a. and costs to the petitioner towards compensation.
This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri LR
Prakash , Advocate for the counsel for Petitioner/Claimant and Sri K. Amarnath Reddy ,
Advocate for the counsel for Respondent No. 2 Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 remained absent and upon hearing both sides this Court doth order as follows:
OS 97/2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
TUESDAY THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019
PRESENT: Sri, K.Pattabhi Rama Rao, XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad
LA O.P. No.343 of 2012
Between: J.Adithya Rao and Anothers ..Claimants
AND
The Commissioner GHMC, Hyderabad ... Respondents
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 152 R/w Sec 151 of CPC praying the court to amend the Judgment dated 30-06-2018 in OP.343/2012 by correcting the interest portion on the entire compensation (Market value, 30 percent solatium and 12 percent additional market value) by awarding interest at 9 percent per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession till the date of payment and thereafter 15 percent per annum till the date of payment or deposit and pass such further order.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
N. Vasu Dev Reddy, Advocate for petitioner and
D O C K E T O R D E R
Orders pronounced (Vide Separate Order). In the result, petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 7th day of
September, 2015.
FAC/ XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
DATED THIS, THE 05TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
Present: Sri.Sambasiva Rao Naidu,
Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB-
Cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IA.No.1532 of 2018
in
IA.No.295 of 2014
In
OS.No.976 of 2013
Between:
Gorla Narsing Rao (Golla Pentaiah). … Petitioner/Plaintiff
And
Gunti Yadaiah and others. .. Defendants/Defendants
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 2A R/w.Sec. 151 of CPC praying the court to initiate appropriate action for not obeying the orders passed in the above IAs are committing contempt of court and further prayed to grant police protection directing the PS. Panjagutta, Hyderabad to provide protection from the respondents/defendants and their henchmen to the machinery, labour and members of petitioners family during digging bore well at the suit
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
Syed Razzaq Ahmed, Advocate for petitioner and upon hearing both sides this Court doth order as follows:
D O C K E T O R D E R
This petition has been filed by the petitioner Under Order. 39 Rule 2A CPC with a prayer to initiate action against the respondent/ defendant for disobeying the injunction order and also to provide protection by ordering Police, Panjagutta to provider protection where the petitioner dug bore-well in the suit schedule property. .. Cont..2.
: 2 :
The respondent/ defendant denied this claim of the petitioner and denied his presence at the suit schedule property and also pleaded that the other people who have got right on the property might have interfere with the said digging of bore well. the petitioner did not adduce any oral evidence, no documents produced. Order 39Rule 2-A CPC provides consequence of disobedience of breach of injunction and amending to Order 39 Rule 3-A
CPC in case of such disobedience, the Court may order attachment of the property of the person caused such disobedience and also order detention of such person in civil prison.
The petitioner cannot seek a direction to the Police to extend protection for digging bore well . Except the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner and the denial of such averments by respondent, there is no other evidence to believe the plea of the petitioner.
Therefore, the petitioner has to explain whether the petitioner is entitled for such relief in the absence of any evidence. For clarification, call on 20-9-2019.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 5th day of
September, 2019.
FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
MONDAY, the 03rd day of December, 2018
PRESENT: Sri K. Pattabhi Rama Rao For Smt,A.V.L. Sathyavathi XXV Additional Chief Judge
A.S. No.141/2015
Between:
Mohd Ali Barazadh Muquaddam ..Appellant
AND
Mrs, Nikhat Hussain Alias Nikhat Naseem ..Respondent
Claim:-This suit is filed by the appellant/defendant Under Order XLI R (1) of CPC within time against the Judgment and Decree passed by the XVII Additional Senior Civil
Judge,City Civil Court, Hyderabad in OS.No. 443 of 2010, passing such other order.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri
Mohd Shafiuddin, Advocate, counsel for appellant/defendant, and upon hearing both sides this court doth order as follows:
DOCKET ORDER
Costs not paid. No representation for appellant during call work and even at 4- 55 PM. This all shows that appellant has no interest to prosecute the appeal. Hence appeal is dismissed for default, No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 3rd day of December 2018.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT :
AT HYDERABAD
Dated, this the 04th day of December, 2018.
PRESENT: Smt,A.V.L. Sathyavathi, XXV Additional Chief Judge.
A.S. No.50/2015
Between: Mr.Mohd. Musheeruddin, S/o. Late Mohd. Basheeruddin, Aged: 53 years,Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.2-3-122, 2nd Floor, Ramgopalpet, Nallagutta, Secunderabad.
..Appellant/Defendant
AND
1. Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority, Rep by its Deputy Secretary/Estate Officer, Office at Darulshifa, Hyderabad.
2. Mr.Md.Faheemuddin, S/o. Late Mohd. Basheeruddin, Aged: 57 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.no.22-2-425/1, Hussaini Mohalla,
Noor Khan Bazar, Hyderabad. .. Respondents/Defendants
Claim:-This suit is filed by the appellant/defendant praying this court pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 2236 of 2012 on the file of VIII Junior Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad dt. 28.11.2014.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.Abdul Muqeeth Qureshi, Advocate counsel for appellant/defendant, and of Sri. P.H.Pannagasai counsel for R1 and of Sri.Mohd. Abdul Kareem counsel for R2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
O R D E R
Appellant called absent. No representation during call work & even at 4.55
P.M. This all shows that appellant has not interest to prosecute the appeal. Hence appeal is dismissed for default. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 04th day of December, 2019.
For XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CCC, HYD.
Thursday, the 25th day of January, 2018.
PRESENT: Smt,A.V.L. Sathyavathi, XXV Additional Chief Judge.
A.S. No.162/2012
Between: Smt, B.V. Aruna Jyothi .Appellant/Defendant
AND
Sri Srinivasa Constructions .Respondents/plaintiff
Claim:-This suit is filed by the appellant/defendant Under Order 41 R (1) R/w Sec 96 of CPC within time against the Judgment and Decree passed by the filed of V Junior Civil
Judge, CCC,Hyd and to pass the decree in OS.No.6393/2007 and to dismiss the suit in
OS.1417/2009 on the file of V Junior Civil Judge,Hyderabad.
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.P. Srinath Advocate, counsel for appellant/defendant, and of Sri. D.Jawaharlal counsel for the R1 and R2 for Respondent upon hearing both sides this court doth order as follows:
O R D E R
Having perused the record, following order is passed. Defendant in original suit in O.S.1517/2009 on the file of V Junior Civil Judge, filed this appeal. The suit is for perpetual injunction. A perusal of record shows that learned judge passed common judgment in O.S.1517/2009 and O.S.6393/2007. O.S.1517/2009 was for perpetual injunction and O.S.6393/2017 was for mandatory injunction. O.S.1517/2009 was decreed on 01.06.2011. Challenging that decreetal order in O.S.1517/2009 defendant therein filed this appeal. Respondent who is plaintiff in that suit made appearance. There was no representation for appellants for several months. Despite conditional orders passed by this Court appellants failed to get submit arguments. All this shows appellant has no interest to prosecute this appeal. For all these reasons appeal is dismissed in terms of
Order 41 Rule 11 of CPC. No costs. Office is directed to notify this and index the record and sent it to learned trial Court.
Written and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 25th day of January 2018.
For XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 8th Day of November, 2019.
PRESENT: Sri.D.Ravindra Sharma,
XXVI Additional Chief Judge, FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge.
IA.No.1909 of 2017 In OS No. 1040 OF 2017
Between:
Mohd.Sadiq Ali & Others. .. Petitioner/Plaintiff.
And
Mohd.Ghouse Mohiuddin Quadri Shafri & Others.
.. Respondents/Defendants
Claim:-This petition filed Under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C praying this court may be pleased to grant Interim Injunction in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.M.Papa Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners/plaintiffs and of Sri.M.Veeresham, Advocate for Respondents/Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
Await reports of R11. For filing additional counters of R1 to R8 and filing counters of R9, R10, R12 to R17 as last chance. Call on 18/11/2019. On memo Interim
Orders extended till then.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 8th day of November, 2019.
FAC XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT
AT HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 21st day of November, 2019.
PRESENT: Smt.B.Prathima, XXV Additional Chief Judge. City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IA.No.1168 of 2019
IN
CMA.No.86 of 2019
Between: Sri. L.N.Agarwal, S/o. Sri. P.N.Agarwal, Aged: 66 years, Occ: Business, R/o.4-7-126, Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad. …Appellant/Petitioner.
AND
1. Smt. B. Vijayalakshmi.
2. Sri.Raja Mahender Reddy. ..Respondents/ Respondents
(Respondent NO.2 is not necessary party to this appeal).
Claim:-This CMA is filed U/o.XLI Rule 5 R/w.Sec.151 CPC praying this court may be pleased to pass an order suspending the order dt. 16-10-2019 passed in IA.No. 293/2019 in OS.No. 1346/2019 on the file of the VII Junior Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above civil Miscellaneous appeal.
This CMA is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.Shyam S.Agrawal, Advocate counsel for appellant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
Heard counsel for the petitioner. Perused the petition and affidavit and the documents.
This petition is filed to suspend the decree and order in IA No.293/2019 in OS 1346/19, dt.16-10-2019 till the CMA is disposed and meanwhile to suspend the order till the respondents file counter. The learned counsel submitted that IA 293/19 was filed against the appellant herein who is the landlord in respect of the schedule described premises i.e., 306 sq. yards within the given boundaries. The said petition was filed for injunction restraining the respondents and others from undertaking any construction over the petition schedule house or creating any charge over the petition schedule house, pending disposal of the main suit and no other relief has sought. ..Cont.2.
: 2 :
However, the learned trial Judge allowed the petition granting order restraining the respondents/ appellants herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in the schedule property.
The learned counsel further submitted that as the respondent/ plaintiff failed to pay the rents, he had already filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rents vide OS No.959/18 which is pending on the file of this Court and without paying the rent and without getting order in the 15-A petition filed in the said suit, the plaintiff hereby filed OS No.1346/19 and in IA 293/19 obtained the impugned orders which are not tenable.
I have gone through the certified copy of petition and affidavit in IA 293/19 and other connected documents and there is same force in the contentions learned counsel of petitioner hold that till some time or till respondents files counter the operation of impugned order passed in IA 293/19, dt.16-10-2019 shall be suspended till 13/11/2019 meanwhile Issue notice to respondents by 13/12/2019.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 21st day of November, 2019.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
This petition is filed U/or. 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking this Court to restrain the respondents l to 17 from alienating the petition schedule I to V immovable properties. Petitioners l to 6 claimed that they filed the suit for partition and that respondents are their co-personers, that respondents giving share to them, have entered into a regd. Partition Deed, dt.10-10-2019 document No.2902/2019 and on which document respondents l and 2 claimed only themselves as legal heirs of Smt. Balamma @ Balamani , that the original ancestors J. Balaraju under whom respondents l and 3 are claiming the suit property, also had another son, by name, J. Ramulu of whom petitioners are the legal heirs and the suit is for partition and separate possession of suit properties and restraining order may be granted restraining the respondents from alienating the property and meanwhile sought to grant Ad-interim injunction dispensing notice to respondents.
Counsel for petitioners submit that respondents l and 3 are making preparation for alienating the properties, and if the same is permitted to be done, the litigation will multiply.
In support of their case, the petitioners filed the following documents:-
1) Death Certificates of J. Ramulu and J. Ashok, white ration card of J. Ramulu, C.C. of partition deeds bearing Nos.2902/17 and 2933/19, copies of Aadhar Cards, property tax bills, market value certificates, Memorandum of deposit of title deeds bearing No.3836/18 and encumbrance certificates of schedule I and III properties.
The above documents prima facie show the case in favour of the petitioners and to keep the property in the same status till some time, at least, till respondents appear in this case and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, I hold that Ad-interim injunction can be granted .
Issue Ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the petition schedule immovable properties.
Comply Order 39 Rule 3(a) CPC by 22/11/2019. Meanwhile Issue urgen notice to respondents by 13/12/2019.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURT : AT
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 26th Day of November, 2019.
PRESENT: Smt. B.Prathima, XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civl Court, Hyderabad.
IA.No.857 of 2019 In ARBOP No. 72 OF 2018
Between:
Sri S.Uma Maheswara Rao and others. .. Petitioners/Petitioners
And
1.M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.,
2. Sri.T.Sundara Ramaiah.
3. A Chiranjeevi. .. Respondents/Respondents
Claim:-This petition filed Under Section 36 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying this court may be pleased to grant stay all further proceedings including execution of the Arbitration Award Dated.14.11.2017 passed in Arbiration Application No. 380 of 2017.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.P.Nagendra Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
Petitioner counsel present. Respondent counsel absent. On memo Ad-Interim orders are extended till 28/1/2020. Meanwhile for counter of R1 finally call on 28/01/2020.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 26th day of November, 2019.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE:CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 14th day of September, 2016.
Present: Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao, XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hydedrabad.
I.A.No. 2152 of 2014 In AS.No. 250 of 2014
Between:
T. Gopal Reddy. ..Petitioner/Appellant.
AND
1. P.Satyanarayana.
2. P.Rajanarsu.
3. T.Sammi Reddy. ..Respondents/Respondents
Claim:-This is a petition filed by the petitioner/Appellant U/O. 41 Rule 5 of CPC with a prayer to suspend the Judgment and decree dt. 17.06.2014 in OS 1514/2013 on the file of XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad pending disposal of the main Appeal.
This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri. Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig Nizami, Advocate counsel for Petitioner/Appellant and of Sri. A.Vijay Saradhi, Advocate for the Respondent/Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:-
DOCKET ORDER
No representation for both sides. Interim Order extended till further orders. Call on 15/11/2016.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 14th day of September, 2016.
Smt. B.Prathima, For Sri P. Kasi Visweswara Rao, XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
1. M. Amarender Reddy S/o Krishna Reddy, aged 43 years, Occ:Business, R/o 5-7-330/1, Agapura, Hyderabad.
2. M. Premeela Reddy W/o Krishna Reddy R/o 5-7-330/1,Agapura, Hyderabad
3. M. Prabhakar Reddy S/o Late Yadagiri Reddy C/o Dr. M. Shashirekha Reddy,Shankarpally, Shankarpally, R.R. Dist.
… Petitioner/Defendants
1. Smt, Ravita P,Reddy W/o Mahendr Purmandla Aged 40 years, Occ:Physician, R/o 26 Helmcrest, Alisoviejo, CA 92656, USA, Rep by her GPA holder Respondent No.2
2. Ms. M. Risha Reddy D/o M. Krishna Reddy, Aged 35 years,Occ:Software Engineer, R/o Flat No,103, Vijaya Towers 10-2-287/1/A, Shanthi Nagar, Hyderabad 3.Marri Krishna Reddy S/o Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 70 years Occ:Retd,Govt,Employee, R/o Flat No,103, Vijaya Towers,H.No.10-2-287/7/1A, Shanthi Nagar, Hyderabad -500028
4. Marri Randheer Reddy S/o Krishna Reddy Aged about 42 years, Occ:Engineer R/o 895,Dove Street, 3rd floor, Newport Beach, CA 92660, USA.
5. Marri Sumathi W/o Marri Karishna Reddy Aged 62 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o Flat No,103, Vijaya Towers, H.No.10-2-287/1/A, Shanthi Nage,Hyderabad -500028
6. Mohd Sharfuddin S/o Burhanuddin, R/o Velimela Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Via Patancheru,Medak Dist,
7. Vaggu Krishna S/o Yadiah R/o Velimela Village,Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Via Patancheru,Medak Dist.
8. Kalvagadda Yettiah S/o Mallah R/o Velimela Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal. Via Patancheru, Medak District
9. Kalvagadda Ramchandraiah S/o Mallaiah R/o Velimela Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Via Patancheru,Medak Dist,
10. Kalavagadda LaxmaiahS/o Mallaiah R/o Velimela Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal,
Via Patancheru,Medak Dist,
11. Kalvagadda Jangaiah S/o Mallaiah R/o Velimela Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Via Patancheru,Medak Dist, 12.Kalavagadda Sathiah S/o Mallaiah R/o Velimela Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Via Patancheru,Medak Dist,
13. Kalavagadda Anjaneyulu S/o Mallaiah R/o Velimela Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Via Patancheru,Medak Dist, 14.Dr. K. Kodanda Pani S/o K. Parthasarathy R/o Plot No,.10, Aurora colony, Road No.3, Banjara Hills,Hyderabad
15. K. Srinivasa Murthy S/o K. Parthasarathy R/o Plot No,.10, Aurora colony, Road No.3, Banjara Hills,Hyderabad
16. Smt, K. Aruna D/o S/o K,Parthasarathy R/o Plot No,.10, Aurora colony, Road No.3, Banjara Hills,Hyderabad
17. Smt, Ratnamala W/o I.J.Diwakar, R/o 6-3-864/1/B, Ameerpet,Hyderabad 18.Smt, K. Karuna W/o K.V.D.M.V. Prasad
19. C. Sethumadhava Rao S/o C. Peraiah R/o 8-3-222/1, Flat No,405, Maruthi Nagar,Hyderabad.
20.Kum, B.Ratna Prabha D/o B. Balaiah R/o 16/11/5/8/C, Saleem Nagar colony, Malakpet,Hyderabad
21. B. Srinivas S/o B.Balaiah R/o 16/11/5/8/C, Saleem Nagar colony, Malakpet,Hyderaabad
22. T.V. Parameshwara Rao, S/o Late T. Sreeramloo R/o 24-B, Santhooshnagar,Saidabad,Hyderabad
23. Smt, P. Rama Devi W/o T.V. Parameshwara Rao, R/o 24-B, Santhooshnagar, Saidabad,Hyderabad
24. Master Jayanth Reddy S/o Dr. K.M. Reddy, Rep by his father and guardian Dr. K.M. Reddy, S/o Agam Reddy, R/o 17-1-375/26/A/14
25. Kum. R. Ramya D/o. Sridhar Varma, rep.by her father and natural guardian Sridhar Varma, S/o. Krishnam Raju, R/o. HIG, Plot No.62, APHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
26. I. Surya Narayana Raju, S/o. Siva Rama Raju, R/o. 47-B, Vengal Rao Nagar Colony, Hyderabad.
27. Smt. Bhanoor Prameela, W/o. Buchi Ramulu, R/o. Velimela Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal Via Patancheru, Medak District.
28. Marathi Mallaiah, S/o. Lingiah, R/o.Velimela Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal,Via Patancheru, Medak District.
29. Kunatavenuka Gandaiah,S/o. Mallaiah, R/o. Velimela Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal Via Patancheru, Medak District.
30. Kunatavenuka Suryanarayan,S/o. Mallaiah, R/o. Velimela Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal Via Patancheru, Medak District.
31. Kunatavenuka Ramulu,S/o. Mallaiah, R/o. Velimela Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal Via Patancheru, Medak District.
32. Kunatavenuka Venkatesha, S/o. Mallaiah, R/o. Velimela Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal Via Patancheru, Medak District.
33. Kunatavenuka Jagan Reddy, S/o. Mallaiah, R/o. Velimela Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal Via Patancheru, Medak District.
34. Kaluvagadda Yettiah, S/o. Mallaiah, R/o. Velimela Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal Via Patancheru, Medak District.
35. G.Padma W/o. G. Srinivas Rao aged 38 years Occ.House wife R/o. MIG 1-137, IX Phase KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072
36. M.Rama Kishore S/o. Venkaiah, age about 45 years Occ: Business, R/o. MIG 11,214 IX Phase KPHP Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500072
37. M.Bhanu Prasad S/o. Late M.Ranga Rao, aged 44 years Occ: Business.
38. M.Ramana Rao S/o. Late M.Ranga Rao, aged 42 years
Occ: Business.
39. Smt.N.Ratna W/o. N.Panduraanga Sai, aged about 45 years Occ: House wife, Res 40 to 42 are R/O Plot No. 321/A/8, Road No. 25, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
40. Smt.Anju Madani W/o. Bijay madani, age 52 years Occ: Housewife, R/o. 4th Floor, maruthi complex, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
41. Jasram Prakash, Choudhary S/o. Jasram Choudhary, age 39 years Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No. 13-D, flat No. 301, Divya Enclave, Kalyan Nagar, Venture III, Hyderabad.
42. G.Sashidhar S/o. G. Narsima Rao age about 53 years Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No. 51, Symphny Dwellings, Anand Nagar, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.
43. Smt.G.Jhansi W/o. G.Sashidhar age about 43 years Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No. 51, Symphny Dwellings, Anand Nagar, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.
44. B.Sita Rama Krishna S/o. B.Sai Prasad, age 38 years Occ: service, R/o. 20211, Sherman way apartment, cross roads 141 Conaga part, CA-91306, USA.
45. M.Rama Chandra Murthy S/o. M.V.Satyanarayana, age 35 years Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No. G2, H.No.1-11-220 Chakkilam Residency, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500016.
46. J.P.Santharam S/o adi seshaiah age 53 years Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No. 302, H.No.1-11-220 Chakkilam Residency, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500016.
47. Anil kumar Nuwal S/o. Jagadish Prasad Nuwal age about 47 years Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No. 8, Main sector, sastry nagar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
48. M.Venkaaiah S/o late M.Ankamma, age about 62 years Occ: Business, R/o. 6-3-903/A/8, Somajiguda, Panjagutta, Hyderabad.
49. M.Bhaskar Rao S/o late M.Ankamma, age about 59 years Occ: Business, R/o. 6-3-903/A/8, Somajiguda, Panjagutta, Hyderabad.
50. M.Srinivasa Rao S/o. Late M. Punnaiah, age about 47 years Occ: Business, R/o. MIG 11,214 IX Phase KPHP Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500072.
51. Smt. U.Mahalakshmi W/o. U.V. Rao, aged about 64 years Occ: Housewife, R/o. Plot no. 86, phase – I Mamalapuri Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500073.
52. Smt.K.Sujatha Rani W/o. K.Srinivas, age 48 years Occ. Housewife, R/o. 5-03, marvel residency, Raj Bhavan road, Somajiguda Hyderabad.
53. G.Srinivas Rao S/o. Late chalanaih, age about 43 years Occ: Business, R/o. MIG I, 136 4th Phase KPHP Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500072.
54. Smt.J.Pushpavathi W/o. J.P.Santhram age 49 years Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No. 302, H.No. 1-11-220 Chakkilam Residencey, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500016.
55. M.Sailaja W/o. M.Srinivasa Rao, age about 44 years Occ: Business, R/o. MIG 11, 214, IX Phase KPHP Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500072.
56. K.Balaji S/o. K.Rama Choudhary, C/o. Kuntavenuka Satyanarayana, Age Major, R/o. Velimala Village, Ramchandrapuram mandel, Medak Dist.
57. Mohd.Arifuddin S/o. Burhanuddin age 49 years, R/o. Velimala Village, Ramchandrapuram mandel, Medak Dist.
( Respondents Nos. 5 to 57 are not necessary parties In this petition)
AFFIDAVIT
We, Narender Nimmala, aged 62 years, Sandhya Nimmala, aged 58 years, residing at Flat No#503, Seshadri Block, SVRS Construction, Saroornagar, RR,Hyderabad, Telangana pin code 500035, do hereby declare as follows:
That we would like to visit USA to visit our Daughter Swetha Nimmala and Son-in-law Buchi Reddy Chintam and to visit the tourist attraction locations in USA such as New York, Los Angeles, Niagara falls and Las Vegas. We would be staying at son residence at 2094 Pomerol drive, Moore, SC-29369. We intend to visit USA for 4 months. During our stay in the United States, our son will bear all our responsibilities including return air ticket fare, food, housing and medical insurance.
I, Narender Nimmala, as a Businessmen and Farmer would returning back to India to resume work.
I Sandhya Nimmala, I work for government services at City Civil Court as Sr. Asistant and have been staying with my husband since our marriage.
We are committed to come back within the legal stay granted by authorities.
Place: Hyderabad Deponents
Date: 20 Dec 2019 Narender Nimmala
Sandhya Nimmala
Sworn to before me
OS. 450 of 2004
01-08-2019 Since PO is Transferred hence case re-posted to 22/8/19 22-08-2019 Since PO is Transferred hence case re-posted to 16/9/19 16-09-2019 The matter is transferred to the Court of XIII Addl. Chief Judge, as per the orders of the Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad in Dis. No. 4493 of 2019 dt. 28/8/2019 Both Parties are directed to appear before the said Court on 30/9/2019.
30-09-2019 The case is Re-transfered to the court of XXV ACJ, As per direction Hononble CJ,CCC,Hyd, Order No.5125, Dt 27-9-19, Both parties are directed to appear before said court 18-10- 2019.
18-10-2019 PO is transferred hence case is re-posted to 12/11/2019.
12-11-2019 PO is transferred hence case is re-posted to 18/11/2019 18-11-2019 Plaintiff counsel present. Defendant counsel present. Advocate Commissioner called absent. Section to put up the record call on 26/11/2019.
26-11-2019 Both side counsel present call on by 27/11/2019.
27-11-2019 As seen from the record received in this court. EX.A1, A2,A3,A4, A5(2 No.s) A6, A8,A9 A10, are original documents. Ex.A7 is photo stat copy which is a certified document with endorsement that unmarked document given vide order dt.1/10/2013 in IA 4550/13 There is another bundle of documents which in pencil are noted as Ex.A11 to A27 and all documents are photocopies attested by counsel for plaintiff. All the documents ie., Ex.A1 to A27 contains exhibit seal but all columns including signatures of PO are blank. Hence, for further steps call on 2/12/2019.
02-12-2019 Plaintiff counsel present. Defendant counsel absent. Call on 16/12/2019.
OS 53 of 2007
13-08-2019 Since PO is Transferred hence case re-posted to 6/9/19 06/9/2019. Suo moto advanced to this day the matter is transferred to the Court of XIII Addl. Chief
Judge, as per the orders of the Chief Judge, CCC, Hyd\'bad in Dis. No. 4493 of 2019 dt.
28/8/2019 Both Parties are directed to appear before the said Court on 15/10/2019.
Dt. 30/09/2019
Suo motto advanced to this day, the mater is transferred to the court of the XXV
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad as per orders of the Chief Judge,City
Civil Court,Hyderabad Vide Order No.5125/2019 dt.27/9/19. and posted to 15/10/19. 15-10-2019 PO is transferred hence case is re-posted to 5/11/2019 05-11-2019 PO is transferred hence case is re-posted to 13/11/2019 13-11-2019 PO is transferred hence case is re-posted to 20/11/2019.
Dt. 20/11/2019.
Plaintiff counsel present. Defendant counsel absent. IAs pending D32, D34 call on 29/11/2019. IA 449/19 counter not filed IA 1599/18 pending call on 29/11/2019. IA 210/19 Counter not filed. IA 437/ 19 Petitioner counsel present. Respondent counsel absent. for hearing call on 29/11/2019. IA 448/19 R 58 to R63 notice not returned. Issue fresh notice to R58 to R63 by way of courier cal on 29/11/2019. Heard res/pet counsel present. D32, D34 are not and taken as heard for order by 29/11/2019 A 1599/18 and 1600/18 are allowed conditionally (Cost of Rs. 1000/- to Pw1 and on commission to file report by 10/12/2019) IA U/O 1 R 10 is pending and IA U/O. 23 is pending IA 210/19 allowed conditionally IA 488 /19 also of adducing evidence by 10/12/2019. IA 210/19 This petition is filed U/s. 151 CPC seeking this Court to set aside the order, dt.8-2-2019 by reopen the evidence of defendants 32 to 34. Petitioners contend that the matter was coming for evidence on defendants side, Defendants 5 to 11 adduced their evidence as DW1 And DW1 Was cross examined and matter was posted for further defendants evidence, meanwhile, petitioners obtained certified copies of sale deeds and documents and they are very crucial and essential to prove their case and it show that petitioners are the bonafide purchasers and since then they are in possession of the property, and as such, the documents may be received and an opportunity may be given to adduce the evidence. I have verified the suit docket and the plea of petitioners seems to be correct. In the circumstances, I hold that an opportunity can be given to the petitioners to adduce their evidence on condition of filing of their side evidence by 10/12/2019. IA 449/19 This petition is filed U/O. 8 Rule 1A (3) to permit the petitions to adduce their side evidence by receiving the documents. Petitioners contend that the matter was coming for evidence on defendants side, defendants 5 to 11 adduced their evidence as DW1 and DW1 was cross examined and matter was posted for further defendants evidence, meanwhile, petitioners obtained certified copies of sale deeds and documents and they are very crucial and essential to prove their case and its show that petitioners are the bonafide purchasers and since then they are in possession of the property, and as such, the documents may be received and an opportunity may be given to aduce the evidence. I have verified the suit docket and the plea of petitioners seems to be correct. In the circumstances, I hold that it is just and necessary to receive the documents i.e., CC of sale deeds, mutation proceedings and patatedar pass books and an opportunity can be given to the petitioners to adduce their evidence on condition of filing of their side evidence by 10/12/2019.
OS.146/2007
15-07-2019 Since PO is on Transferred hence case re-posted to 9/8/19 09-08-2019 PO is transferred hence case is re-posted to 26/8/2019 26-08-2019 PO is on kept case reposted to 19-09-2019 30-09-2019 Suo motto advanced to this day, the mater is transferred to the court of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad as per orders of the Chief
Judge,City Civil Court,Hyderabad Vide Order No.5125/2019 dt.27/9/19. and posted to
17/10/2019. 17/10/2019 PO is transferred hence case is re-posted to 14/11/2019.
14-11-2019 Plaintiff counsel present. D4 D6 counsel present. Process of D3 D5, D7 and paid call on 18/11/2019.
18-11-2019 Petitioner counsel absent. Process of D3, D5,D7 paid. Defendant counsel called absent. Plaintiff present D4 D6 counsel present. IA of 2019 U/o. 9 R 13 filed by D4, D6 and is allowed the exparte order dt.15/4/2019 against D4, D6 is set aside WS of D4, D6 is taken on record. Issue fresh SS to D4 D5 D7 their counsel by 27/11/2019.
27-11-2019 D3,D5.D7 absent,memo filed that SS to D3,D5,D7 and ACK are awaited, call o n 4/12/19.
04-12-2019 D3.D5,D7, absent, Plaintiff counsel absent, call on 5/12/19 even when called at 5.00 PM.
05-12-2019 D3,D5,D7, absent, memo filed with DTDC delivered report of D3 and unserved courier counter of D5 with a request as Address not found and D7 with a report the no phone number and address ,Hence for steps of D5,D7 and D3 is set exparte and serve held sufficient, call on 6/12/19.
OS. 184/ 2007
25-06-2019 Since PO is on transferred hence case re-posted to 15/7/19 15-07-2019 Since PO is on Transferred hence case re-posted to 6/8/19 06-08-2019 Since PO is transferred hence case re-posted to 22/8/19 22-08-2019 Since PO is Transferred hence case re-posted to 30/8/19 30-08-2019 P.O is transferred hence case is re-posted to 27/9/2019. 30-09-2019 The case is Re-transfered to the court of XXV ACJ, As per direction Hononble CJ,CCC,Hyd, Order No.5125, Dt 27-9-19, Both parties are directed to appear before said court 17-10-2019.
17-10-2019 PO is transferred hence case is re-posted to 12/11/2019. 12-11-2019 PO is transferred hence case is re-posted to 26/11/2019 26-11-2019 DW1 absent DW2 absent As per received plaintiff cross of DW1 by D4 ad ( after marking of documents ad cross of DW2 D6,) plaintiff counsel absent,D4,D1 counsel present, for cross of DW1 by D4 ad for after marking of documents cross of DW2, call on 2/12/19. 2/12/2019. As per record IA 191/19 is IA 210/19 allowed for reopened evidence of DW1 and to permit D4 to cross examination DW1 and to adduce evidence of D4 . DW1 was earlier cross examined only by D2 and D6. IA 202/19 filed by D6 to received documents, Three DW1 has to now be cross examined by D4 and then for evidence of D2,D3, D5,D4 and neatly D6 in this seriatum. D3 reported by died but no memo is on record, section put up, call on 6/12/19
OS.576/2006
22-08-2019 For defendant evidence by 26/8/19 26-08-2019 Sri. Rushik Reddy filed vakalat for defendant Memo filed stating that plaintiff no.2 died and his LR\'s are on record call on 05/9/2019.
05-09-2019 PO is transferred hence case is re-posted to 9/9/2019 09-09-2019 PO is on kept vacant case reposted to 16-09-2019 30-09-2019 The case is Re-transferred to the court of XXV ACJ, As per order No.5125 Dt. 27/9/19 Both parties are directed to appear before the said court 18-10-2019.
18-10-2019 PO is transferred hence case is re-posted to 25/10/2019.
25-10-2019 IA of 2019 is filed time extended for getting extension for the stay order from the Honourable High Court till 30/10/2019 call on 30/10/2019 No further Adjournment 30-10-2019 Stay order filed along with memo. extended till 12-11-19 12-11-2019 PO is transferred hence case is re-posted to 18/11/2019 18-11-2019 Memo field that stay extended by Honorable High Court is IA 3/18 in CRP 7577/18 dt. 11/11/09 for four weeks respondent call by 13/12/2019
IA 1192 of 2019 IN OP 3092/14
Dt.03/11/2019
Heard counsel for petition. This petition is filed for premature withdrawal of FDR amount which is half of the compensation amount awarded to the petitioners. The deposit time of two years completes by August 2021 around.
Petitioner submit that he is purchasing a house and the money is needed by them to purchase the house and they already paid part consideration.
In view of the submitting made by the petitioner’s counsel and considering the agreement of sale and receipt copies, filed with this petition, I hold that petitioner can be permitted to withdraw the entire FDR amount to enable to purchase the house. Petition is allowed.
OS. 637 of 2008
Objections were raised on the admissibility of Ex.B1 marked through DW1 in his further chief examination. The objection of the counsel for plaintiff is that the document is inadmissible for want of stamp duty and registration.
As seen from Ex.B1 it is captioned as Memorandum of Partition, the date of the document is 25/4/1985 for partition of immovable properties between three parties. As per the recitals of the document, partition was effected among themselves at the instance of guidance of elders on 22-3-1985 and the three parties were allotted the properties respectively shown in schedule A,B and C properties.
The counsel for defendants submitted that this is only a Memorandum of Past Partition which was reduced in to writing nearly one month after the partition was effected orally and it does not come under the definition of instrument of partition U/S. 2(5) of Stamp Act as it stood unamended as on said date. The document Ex.B1 is dated 25/4/1985 and it recites they partition was orally effected on 22/3/1985. Sec. 2(5) instrument of partition was amended by way of A.P. Amendment Act 17 of 1986 w.e.f., 16/8/1986, and as such, it does not attract any stamp duty under Article 40, Sch. 1(a) of Stamp as on Ex.B1 date Duty. The learned counsel further submitted that this M.O.P is not a compulsorily registrable document U/S. 17 of Indian Registration Act.
The Counsel for plaintiffs except submitting that the document attracts stamp duty and registration failed to substantiate his plea referring to any statutory or precendialauthority. This Court hold that it is only a MOP, dt. 24/5/1985 reflecting the oral partition effected on 22/3/1985 and it was prior to the amendment of A.P. Amendment came into force on 16/8/1986. Thus, Ex.B1 is not expendable with any stamp duty under Article 40 Sch.1 (a) of Stamp Act and it is also not a compulsorily registrable. The objection is answered accordingly. Further Defendant evidence finally by 20/1/2020.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: SMT. B. PRATHIMA, XXV Additional Chief Judge.
Dated, this the 24th Day of January, 2020.
IA No. 80 OF 2020 in CMA No.2 OF 2020
Between:
Smt. Paka Bhargavi. .. Petitioners/Plaintiffs.
And
S.Yellamma and Others.
.. Respondent/Defendants
Claim: This petition filed Under Section 151 R/w Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. This petition came before me on this day in the presence of Shri.Bankatlal Mandhani Advocate for the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:
DOCKET ORDER
Sri.N.Prashanth Advocate filed continuation memo for R1,R2 on petition, Status
Quo is extended till 11/02/2020. For counter and hearing 11/02/2020.
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20th day of December, 2019.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: SMT. B. PRATHIMA, XXV Additional Chief Judge,
Dated, this the 22nd Day of January, 2020.
IA No.44 OF 2016 in O S No. 488 OF 2008
Between:
Sri. Jayalakshmi Automotives Pvt. Ltd., .. Petitioner/Plaintiff
And
Sri. Sabbineni Sarojini and Others. .. Respondent/Defendants
Claim: This petition filed Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 & Sec.151 of CPC praying this court pleased to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the petition schedule property in any manner or otherwise create encumbrance or 3rd party interest thereon pending disposal of the suit.
This petition came before me on this day in the presence of M/s. A. Sudhakara Rao Advocate for the Plaintiff/Respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:
DOCKET ORDER
Order passed in the memo and IA memo
Written and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 22nd day of January, 2020.
XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.